That is wrong in three ways. * That's not what the removed code was doing at all. * That's a 1980s idea of "normal". Forking is something that has been gradu

That is wrong in three ways. * That's not what the removed code was doing at all. * That's a 1980s idea of "normal". Forking is something that has been gradually disappearing as standard practice for daemons for the past 16 years, as can be seen from the large number of daemons that now have "don't fork" modes, as compared to the number in the middle 1990s. The idea that daemons fork as some sort of standard practice was the mainstream thinking then, but it is not now. * Most programs in the wild do not correctly speak the forking readiness protocol, in part because those programs are not forking as a readiness protocol in the first place. Many people, in particular those involved in the Debian Technical Committee hoo-hah a while back, considered the opposite of what you claim to be actually true. There is no need for the flawed, bodged, and in practice broken forking readiness protocol when one has a proper readiness notification protocol. http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/unix-daemon-readiness-protocol-problems.html#NooneSpeaksForking http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/un...