Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!agate!doc.ic.ac.uk!uknet!pipex!demon!centrix.demon.co.uk!damian Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.development From: damian@centrix.demon.co.uk (damian) Subject: Re: SIGKILL and kill References: <1qo3mq$d4b@news.cs.tu-berlin.de> <9304171535.ab08751@gate.demon.co.uk> <C5nsF8.35H@sugar.neosoft.com> Organization: Centrix Keywords: SIGNALS SECURITY Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 21:52:27 +0000 Message-ID: <9304200033.af09432@gate.demon.co.uk> Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk Lines: 20 In article <C5nsF8.35H@sugar.neosoft.com> peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <9304171535.ab08751@gate.demon.co.uk> damian@centrix.demon.co.uk (damian) writes: >> have seen a SIGKILL will soon follow. In fact I have been trying to >> work out why sh ignores SIGTERM when at the command prompt (it behaves >> properly when running a script). > >So you can do "kill 0" to get rid of background processes without logging out. Ah so there is a reason. Still I think that is a little inconsistent. After all SIGTERM should mean "Please *you* die, and cleanup" (as opposed to the SIGKILL's "Die sucker! Now!" :-)). Still I suppose I can't think of a better signal that sh could use for the kill 0. Damian -- +----------------------------+------------------------------------------------+ | Damian Ivereigh | If you can't suss out what this is replying to | | damian@centrix.demon.co.uk | get a threaded news reader, like trn. :-) | | Twickenham, U.K. | This is the best way to cut wasted traffic | +----------------------------+------------------------------------------------+