Re: nohup Versus setsid

On Thu, 12 Sep 2024 22:02:10 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Thu, 12 Sep 2024 14:01:37 +0200, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
 

In article <vbtqcd$2sce$1@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence D'Oliveiro  <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

>
It has long seemed to me that nohup(1) was an old, hacky way of doing
what can be done more elegantly using setsid(1).

 
I don't know the details, but the descriptions look quite different...
nohup - run a command immune to hangups, with output to a non-tty
setsid - run a program in a new session

 
The effect is supposed to be the same: spawn a background task that will
continue running after you log out.

That's not the only thing that the (POSIX) nohup(1) tool does.

I prefer the simplicity of nohup's behavior, and use it when doing
"big" compiles.

I have a script:
$ cat go.sh
time -p make -j64

So I can:
$ nohup ./go.sh &

Then I can watch for status without flooding the terminal:

$ while : ; do tail nohup.out ; date; sleep 5 ; done

Everybody has their own way of doing things, but this works
on any POSIX system, not just Linux[*].

[*] Though, truth be told, I'm mostly using it to
compile Linux.

--
-Scott System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti
   OS: Linux 6.11.0-rc7 Release: Mint 21.3 Mem: 258G
   "E Pluribus UNIX."