kill xterm kills app!

[Jay Daniels]

On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 03:04:39PM +1000, Matt Hansen wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-04-29 at 14:11, Chris wrote:
> > Hi Jay,
> > 
> > On Wednesday, Apr 28, 2004, at 23:57 US/Eastern, Jay Daniels wrote:
> > 
> > >> If you start it with the ampersand and later want to close the xterm 
> > >> but
> > >> keep the other app (xclock) going, you can use 'disown' to do the same
> > >> thing that 'nohup' does when starting it as mentioned in earlier 
> > >> posts.
> > >> For example:
> > >>
> > >> $ xclock &
> > >> $ disown xclock
> > >>
> > >> Paul
> > >
> > >
> > > Why does xclock become a child of the xterm process if you use the
> > > ampersand and run it in the background?
> > >
> > 
> > xclock actually becomes a child process of the shell (bash, usually). 
> > When you start it with nohup, it becomes a child of the init process 
> > (usually PID 1) after the 'real' parent (the shell) dies.
> 
> Is there any functional difference between say 'nohup xclock &' and 
> 'xclock & ; disown xclock' apart from the latter involves more typing?
> 
> Regards,
> -Matt


I don't think so, but as I stated "xclock &" will get killed when you
exit the xterm.


jay