3 ms·
> it’s weird that “logging out” doesn’t imply “and end all my programs.” Weirdness is in the eye of the beholder. I regularly run programs whose lifecycles ar
by ycombobreaker 6y ago
> it’s weird that “logging out” doesn’t imply “and end all my programs.”
Weirdness is in the eye of the beholder. I regularly run programs whose lifecycles are not in sync with my login session. Why do I need to stick around to see a batch job complete?
I can understand that different folks have different backgrounds which changes expectations... but come on... somebody bringing up tmux, screen, etc. should simply end the conversation. "Oh, that is a common and historical use case that I have not considered, today I learned something."
- Supermancho 6y ago>> it’s weird that “logging out” doesn’t imply “and end all my programs.” > Weirdness is in the eye of the beholder It's a windows acolyte mindset. Many people don't imagine that a login is just another program, rather than the parent process.
- Spivak 6y agoYes but that model conflicts with the human notion of being “logged in” to a system. And the current behavior is literally what you describe. It’s just the quirk of subreapers being implemented recently that daemonizing a process wasn’t local to your session. It makes zero sense that a process that double forks is reparented by init instead of your session leader. If how things worked currently was proposed today it would sound crazy.