Do `disown -h` and `nohup` work effectively the same?
up vote
15
down vote
favorite
disown
causes a shell not to send SIGHUP to its disowned job when the shell terminates, and
removes the disowned job from the shell's job control.
Is the first the result of the second?
In other words, if a process started from a shell is removed from the shell's job control by any way, will the shell not send SIGHUP to the process when the shell terminates?
disown -h
still keeps a process under a shell's job control. Does it mean that disown -h
makes a process still receives SIGHUP sent from the shell, but sets up the action of SIGHUP by the process to be "ignore"? That sounds similar to nohup
.
$ sleep 123 & disown -h
[1] 26103
$ jobs
[1]+ Running sleep 123 &
$ fg 1
sleep 123
$ ^Z
[1]+ Stopped sleep 125
$ bg 1
[1]+ sleep 123 &
$ exit
$ ps aux | grep sleep
t 26103 0.0 0.0 14584 824 ? S 15:19 0:00 sleep 123
Do disown -h
and nohup
work effectively the same, if we disregard their difference in using a terminal?
Thanks.
bash nohup disown
add a comment |
up vote
15
down vote
favorite
disown
causes a shell not to send SIGHUP to its disowned job when the shell terminates, and
removes the disowned job from the shell's job control.
Is the first the result of the second?
In other words, if a process started from a shell is removed from the shell's job control by any way, will the shell not send SIGHUP to the process when the shell terminates?
disown -h
still keeps a process under a shell's job control. Does it mean that disown -h
makes a process still receives SIGHUP sent from the shell, but sets up the action of SIGHUP by the process to be "ignore"? That sounds similar to nohup
.
$ sleep 123 & disown -h
[1] 26103
$ jobs
[1]+ Running sleep 123 &
$ fg 1
sleep 123
$ ^Z
[1]+ Stopped sleep 125
$ bg 1
[1]+ sleep 123 &
$ exit
$ ps aux | grep sleep
t 26103 0.0 0.0 14584 824 ? S 15:19 0:00 sleep 123
Do disown -h
and nohup
work effectively the same, if we disregard their difference in using a terminal?
Thanks.
bash nohup disown
Another difference not discussed here is that if you aren't usingnohup
, you need to redirect stdin/stdout/stderr away from the TTY (should your original shell be connected to one) yourself. (OTOH, I actually consider that better practice than relying on an egregious hardcoded default like./nohup.out
).
– Charles Duffy
Nov 26 at 22:17
add a comment |
up vote
15
down vote
favorite
up vote
15
down vote
favorite
disown
causes a shell not to send SIGHUP to its disowned job when the shell terminates, and
removes the disowned job from the shell's job control.
Is the first the result of the second?
In other words, if a process started from a shell is removed from the shell's job control by any way, will the shell not send SIGHUP to the process when the shell terminates?
disown -h
still keeps a process under a shell's job control. Does it mean that disown -h
makes a process still receives SIGHUP sent from the shell, but sets up the action of SIGHUP by the process to be "ignore"? That sounds similar to nohup
.
$ sleep 123 & disown -h
[1] 26103
$ jobs
[1]+ Running sleep 123 &
$ fg 1
sleep 123
$ ^Z
[1]+ Stopped sleep 125
$ bg 1
[1]+ sleep 123 &
$ exit
$ ps aux | grep sleep
t 26103 0.0 0.0 14584 824 ? S 15:19 0:00 sleep 123
Do disown -h
and nohup
work effectively the same, if we disregard their difference in using a terminal?
Thanks.
bash nohup disown
disown
causes a shell not to send SIGHUP to its disowned job when the shell terminates, and
removes the disowned job from the shell's job control.
Is the first the result of the second?
In other words, if a process started from a shell is removed from the shell's job control by any way, will the shell not send SIGHUP to the process when the shell terminates?
disown -h
still keeps a process under a shell's job control. Does it mean that disown -h
makes a process still receives SIGHUP sent from the shell, but sets up the action of SIGHUP by the process to be "ignore"? That sounds similar to nohup
.
$ sleep 123 & disown -h
[1] 26103
$ jobs
[1]+ Running sleep 123 &
$ fg 1
sleep 123
$ ^Z
[1]+ Stopped sleep 125
$ bg 1
[1]+ sleep 123 &
$ exit
$ ps aux | grep sleep
t 26103 0.0 0.0 14584 824 ? S 15:19 0:00 sleep 123
Do disown -h
and nohup
work effectively the same, if we disregard their difference in using a terminal?
Thanks.
bash nohup disown
bash nohup disown
edited Nov 26 at 22:24
asked Nov 26 at 19:48
Tim
25.3k73243447
25.3k73243447
Another difference not discussed here is that if you aren't usingnohup
, you need to redirect stdin/stdout/stderr away from the TTY (should your original shell be connected to one) yourself. (OTOH, I actually consider that better practice than relying on an egregious hardcoded default like./nohup.out
).
– Charles Duffy
Nov 26 at 22:17
add a comment |
Another difference not discussed here is that if you aren't usingnohup
, you need to redirect stdin/stdout/stderr away from the TTY (should your original shell be connected to one) yourself. (OTOH, I actually consider that better practice than relying on an egregious hardcoded default like./nohup.out
).
– Charles Duffy
Nov 26 at 22:17
Another difference not discussed here is that if you aren't using
nohup
, you need to redirect stdin/stdout/stderr away from the TTY (should your original shell be connected to one) yourself. (OTOH, I actually consider that better practice than relying on an egregious hardcoded default like ./nohup.out
).– Charles Duffy
Nov 26 at 22:17
Another difference not discussed here is that if you aren't using
nohup
, you need to redirect stdin/stdout/stderr away from the TTY (should your original shell be connected to one) yourself. (OTOH, I actually consider that better practice than relying on an egregious hardcoded default like ./nohup.out
).– Charles Duffy
Nov 26 at 22:17
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
19
down vote
nohup
and disown -h
are not exactly the same thing.
With disown
, a process is removed from the list of jobs in the current interactive shell. Running jobs
after starting a background process and running disown
will not show that process as a job in the shell. A disowned job will not receive a HUP
from the shell when it exits (but see note at end).
With disown -h
, the job is not removed from the list of jobs, but the shell would not send a HUP
signal to it if it exited (but see note at end).
The nohup
utility ignores the HUP
signal and starts the given utility. The utility inherits the signal mask from nohup
and will therefore also ignore the HUP
signal. When the shell terminates, the process remains as a child process of nohup
(and nohup
is re-parented to init
).
The difference is that the process started with nohup
ignores HUP
regardless of who sends the signal. The disowned processes are just not sent a HUP
signal by the shell, but may still be sent the signal from e.g. kill -s HUP <pid>
and will not ignore this.
Note that HUP
is only sent to the jobs of a shell if
- the shell is a login shell and the
huponexit
shell option is set, or - the shell itself recieves a
HUP
signal.
Relevant bits from the bash
manual (my emphasis):
SIGNALS
[...]
The shell exits by default upon receipt of a
SIGHUP
. Before exiting,
an interactive shell resends theSIGHUP
to all jobs, running or
stopped. Stopped jobs are sentSIGCONT
to ensure that they receive the
SIGHUP
. To prevent the shell from sending the signal to a particular
job, it should be removed from the jobs table with thedisown
builtin
(seeSHELL BUILTIN COMMANDS
below) or marked to not receiveSIGHUP
usingdisown -h
.
If the
huponexit
shell option has been set withshopt
,bash
sends a
SIGHUP
to all jobs when an interactive login shell exits.
disown [-ar] [-h] [jobspec ... | pid ... ]
Without options, remove each
jobspec
from the table of active
jobs. [...] If the-h
option
is given, eachjobspec
is not removed from the table, but is
marked so thatSIGHUP
is not sent to the job if the shell
receives aSIGHUP
. [...]
Related:
- Difference between nohup, disown and &
I getbash: disown: nohup: no such job
and same forsleep
and5
fromdisown nohup sleep 5 &
. What did you mean by that second command from the last sentence?
– Ruslan
Nov 26 at 20:54
@Ruslan Yes I'm missing a&
in there (and the order ofnohup
anddisown
was also wrong). Thanks. Will update now.
– Kusalananda
Nov 26 at 20:55
For example, unix.stackexchange.com/questions/484315/…
– Tim
Nov 26 at 22:30
@Tim Sorry for the excessive editing of the answer. It took a while to get my head around it. I'm done now.
– Kusalananda
Nov 26 at 23:04
Thanks.disown
makes a shell not sent SIGHUP to a child by removing the child from the shell's job list. How doesdisown -h
achieve the same?
– Tim
Nov 26 at 23:14
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
4
down vote
They are Different:
disown removes the job from the active jobs table. Then continues on with current job. With -h the proccess is NOT sent SIGHUP. It is instead left to die with the shell that contains it, when it recieves a SIGHUP.
nohup ignores the HUP. Then anything that would have been passed to the terminal by the proccess closing instead goes to a file
nohup.out
.
nohup is defined by POSIX while disown is not.
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
19
down vote
nohup
and disown -h
are not exactly the same thing.
With disown
, a process is removed from the list of jobs in the current interactive shell. Running jobs
after starting a background process and running disown
will not show that process as a job in the shell. A disowned job will not receive a HUP
from the shell when it exits (but see note at end).
With disown -h
, the job is not removed from the list of jobs, but the shell would not send a HUP
signal to it if it exited (but see note at end).
The nohup
utility ignores the HUP
signal and starts the given utility. The utility inherits the signal mask from nohup
and will therefore also ignore the HUP
signal. When the shell terminates, the process remains as a child process of nohup
(and nohup
is re-parented to init
).
The difference is that the process started with nohup
ignores HUP
regardless of who sends the signal. The disowned processes are just not sent a HUP
signal by the shell, but may still be sent the signal from e.g. kill -s HUP <pid>
and will not ignore this.
Note that HUP
is only sent to the jobs of a shell if
- the shell is a login shell and the
huponexit
shell option is set, or - the shell itself recieves a
HUP
signal.
Relevant bits from the bash
manual (my emphasis):
SIGNALS
[...]
The shell exits by default upon receipt of a
SIGHUP
. Before exiting,
an interactive shell resends theSIGHUP
to all jobs, running or
stopped. Stopped jobs are sentSIGCONT
to ensure that they receive the
SIGHUP
. To prevent the shell from sending the signal to a particular
job, it should be removed from the jobs table with thedisown
builtin
(seeSHELL BUILTIN COMMANDS
below) or marked to not receiveSIGHUP
usingdisown -h
.
If the
huponexit
shell option has been set withshopt
,bash
sends a
SIGHUP
to all jobs when an interactive login shell exits.
disown [-ar] [-h] [jobspec ... | pid ... ]
Without options, remove each
jobspec
from the table of active
jobs. [...] If the-h
option
is given, eachjobspec
is not removed from the table, but is
marked so thatSIGHUP
is not sent to the job if the shell
receives aSIGHUP
. [...]
Related:
- Difference between nohup, disown and &
I getbash: disown: nohup: no such job
and same forsleep
and5
fromdisown nohup sleep 5 &
. What did you mean by that second command from the last sentence?
– Ruslan
Nov 26 at 20:54
@Ruslan Yes I'm missing a&
in there (and the order ofnohup
anddisown
was also wrong). Thanks. Will update now.
– Kusalananda
Nov 26 at 20:55
For example, unix.stackexchange.com/questions/484315/…
– Tim
Nov 26 at 22:30
@Tim Sorry for the excessive editing of the answer. It took a while to get my head around it. I'm done now.
– Kusalananda
Nov 26 at 23:04
Thanks.disown
makes a shell not sent SIGHUP to a child by removing the child from the shell's job list. How doesdisown -h
achieve the same?
– Tim
Nov 26 at 23:14
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
19
down vote
nohup
and disown -h
are not exactly the same thing.
With disown
, a process is removed from the list of jobs in the current interactive shell. Running jobs
after starting a background process and running disown
will not show that process as a job in the shell. A disowned job will not receive a HUP
from the shell when it exits (but see note at end).
With disown -h
, the job is not removed from the list of jobs, but the shell would not send a HUP
signal to it if it exited (but see note at end).
The nohup
utility ignores the HUP
signal and starts the given utility. The utility inherits the signal mask from nohup
and will therefore also ignore the HUP
signal. When the shell terminates, the process remains as a child process of nohup
(and nohup
is re-parented to init
).
The difference is that the process started with nohup
ignores HUP
regardless of who sends the signal. The disowned processes are just not sent a HUP
signal by the shell, but may still be sent the signal from e.g. kill -s HUP <pid>
and will not ignore this.
Note that HUP
is only sent to the jobs of a shell if
- the shell is a login shell and the
huponexit
shell option is set, or - the shell itself recieves a
HUP
signal.
Relevant bits from the bash
manual (my emphasis):
SIGNALS
[...]
The shell exits by default upon receipt of a
SIGHUP
. Before exiting,
an interactive shell resends theSIGHUP
to all jobs, running or
stopped. Stopped jobs are sentSIGCONT
to ensure that they receive the
SIGHUP
. To prevent the shell from sending the signal to a particular
job, it should be removed from the jobs table with thedisown
builtin
(seeSHELL BUILTIN COMMANDS
below) or marked to not receiveSIGHUP
usingdisown -h
.
If the
huponexit
shell option has been set withshopt
,bash
sends a
SIGHUP
to all jobs when an interactive login shell exits.
disown [-ar] [-h] [jobspec ... | pid ... ]
Without options, remove each
jobspec
from the table of active
jobs. [...] If the-h
option
is given, eachjobspec
is not removed from the table, but is
marked so thatSIGHUP
is not sent to the job if the shell
receives aSIGHUP
. [...]
Related:
- Difference between nohup, disown and &
I getbash: disown: nohup: no such job
and same forsleep
and5
fromdisown nohup sleep 5 &
. What did you mean by that second command from the last sentence?
– Ruslan
Nov 26 at 20:54
@Ruslan Yes I'm missing a&
in there (and the order ofnohup
anddisown
was also wrong). Thanks. Will update now.
– Kusalananda
Nov 26 at 20:55
For example, unix.stackexchange.com/questions/484315/…
– Tim
Nov 26 at 22:30
@Tim Sorry for the excessive editing of the answer. It took a while to get my head around it. I'm done now.
– Kusalananda
Nov 26 at 23:04
Thanks.disown
makes a shell not sent SIGHUP to a child by removing the child from the shell's job list. How doesdisown -h
achieve the same?
– Tim
Nov 26 at 23:14
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
19
down vote
up vote
19
down vote
nohup
and disown -h
are not exactly the same thing.
With disown
, a process is removed from the list of jobs in the current interactive shell. Running jobs
after starting a background process and running disown
will not show that process as a job in the shell. A disowned job will not receive a HUP
from the shell when it exits (but see note at end).
With disown -h
, the job is not removed from the list of jobs, but the shell would not send a HUP
signal to it if it exited (but see note at end).
The nohup
utility ignores the HUP
signal and starts the given utility. The utility inherits the signal mask from nohup
and will therefore also ignore the HUP
signal. When the shell terminates, the process remains as a child process of nohup
(and nohup
is re-parented to init
).
The difference is that the process started with nohup
ignores HUP
regardless of who sends the signal. The disowned processes are just not sent a HUP
signal by the shell, but may still be sent the signal from e.g. kill -s HUP <pid>
and will not ignore this.
Note that HUP
is only sent to the jobs of a shell if
- the shell is a login shell and the
huponexit
shell option is set, or - the shell itself recieves a
HUP
signal.
Relevant bits from the bash
manual (my emphasis):
SIGNALS
[...]
The shell exits by default upon receipt of a
SIGHUP
. Before exiting,
an interactive shell resends theSIGHUP
to all jobs, running or
stopped. Stopped jobs are sentSIGCONT
to ensure that they receive the
SIGHUP
. To prevent the shell from sending the signal to a particular
job, it should be removed from the jobs table with thedisown
builtin
(seeSHELL BUILTIN COMMANDS
below) or marked to not receiveSIGHUP
usingdisown -h
.
If the
huponexit
shell option has been set withshopt
,bash
sends a
SIGHUP
to all jobs when an interactive login shell exits.
disown [-ar] [-h] [jobspec ... | pid ... ]
Without options, remove each
jobspec
from the table of active
jobs. [...] If the-h
option
is given, eachjobspec
is not removed from the table, but is
marked so thatSIGHUP
is not sent to the job if the shell
receives aSIGHUP
. [...]
Related:
- Difference between nohup, disown and &
nohup
and disown -h
are not exactly the same thing.
With disown
, a process is removed from the list of jobs in the current interactive shell. Running jobs
after starting a background process and running disown
will not show that process as a job in the shell. A disowned job will not receive a HUP
from the shell when it exits (but see note at end).
With disown -h
, the job is not removed from the list of jobs, but the shell would not send a HUP
signal to it if it exited (but see note at end).
The nohup
utility ignores the HUP
signal and starts the given utility. The utility inherits the signal mask from nohup
and will therefore also ignore the HUP
signal. When the shell terminates, the process remains as a child process of nohup
(and nohup
is re-parented to init
).
The difference is that the process started with nohup
ignores HUP
regardless of who sends the signal. The disowned processes are just not sent a HUP
signal by the shell, but may still be sent the signal from e.g. kill -s HUP <pid>
and will not ignore this.
Note that HUP
is only sent to the jobs of a shell if
- the shell is a login shell and the
huponexit
shell option is set, or - the shell itself recieves a
HUP
signal.
Relevant bits from the bash
manual (my emphasis):
SIGNALS
[...]
The shell exits by default upon receipt of a
SIGHUP
. Before exiting,
an interactive shell resends theSIGHUP
to all jobs, running or
stopped. Stopped jobs are sentSIGCONT
to ensure that they receive the
SIGHUP
. To prevent the shell from sending the signal to a particular
job, it should be removed from the jobs table with thedisown
builtin
(seeSHELL BUILTIN COMMANDS
below) or marked to not receiveSIGHUP
usingdisown -h
.
If the
huponexit
shell option has been set withshopt
,bash
sends a
SIGHUP
to all jobs when an interactive login shell exits.
disown [-ar] [-h] [jobspec ... | pid ... ]
Without options, remove each
jobspec
from the table of active
jobs. [...] If the-h
option
is given, eachjobspec
is not removed from the table, but is
marked so thatSIGHUP
is not sent to the job if the shell
receives aSIGHUP
. [...]
Related:
- Difference between nohup, disown and &
edited Nov 26 at 23:08
answered Nov 26 at 20:05
Kusalananda
119k16223365
119k16223365
I getbash: disown: nohup: no such job
and same forsleep
and5
fromdisown nohup sleep 5 &
. What did you mean by that second command from the last sentence?
– Ruslan
Nov 26 at 20:54
@Ruslan Yes I'm missing a&
in there (and the order ofnohup
anddisown
was also wrong). Thanks. Will update now.
– Kusalananda
Nov 26 at 20:55
For example, unix.stackexchange.com/questions/484315/…
– Tim
Nov 26 at 22:30
@Tim Sorry for the excessive editing of the answer. It took a while to get my head around it. I'm done now.
– Kusalananda
Nov 26 at 23:04
Thanks.disown
makes a shell not sent SIGHUP to a child by removing the child from the shell's job list. How doesdisown -h
achieve the same?
– Tim
Nov 26 at 23:14
|
show 2 more comments
I getbash: disown: nohup: no such job
and same forsleep
and5
fromdisown nohup sleep 5 &
. What did you mean by that second command from the last sentence?
– Ruslan
Nov 26 at 20:54
@Ruslan Yes I'm missing a&
in there (and the order ofnohup
anddisown
was also wrong). Thanks. Will update now.
– Kusalananda
Nov 26 at 20:55
For example, unix.stackexchange.com/questions/484315/…
– Tim
Nov 26 at 22:30
@Tim Sorry for the excessive editing of the answer. It took a while to get my head around it. I'm done now.
– Kusalananda
Nov 26 at 23:04
Thanks.disown
makes a shell not sent SIGHUP to a child by removing the child from the shell's job list. How doesdisown -h
achieve the same?
– Tim
Nov 26 at 23:14
I get
bash: disown: nohup: no such job
and same for sleep
and 5
from disown nohup sleep 5 &
. What did you mean by that second command from the last sentence?– Ruslan
Nov 26 at 20:54
I get
bash: disown: nohup: no such job
and same for sleep
and 5
from disown nohup sleep 5 &
. What did you mean by that second command from the last sentence?– Ruslan
Nov 26 at 20:54
@Ruslan Yes I'm missing a
&
in there (and the order of nohup
and disown
was also wrong). Thanks. Will update now.– Kusalananda
Nov 26 at 20:55
@Ruslan Yes I'm missing a
&
in there (and the order of nohup
and disown
was also wrong). Thanks. Will update now.– Kusalananda
Nov 26 at 20:55
For example, unix.stackexchange.com/questions/484315/…
– Tim
Nov 26 at 22:30
For example, unix.stackexchange.com/questions/484315/…
– Tim
Nov 26 at 22:30
@Tim Sorry for the excessive editing of the answer. It took a while to get my head around it. I'm done now.
– Kusalananda
Nov 26 at 23:04
@Tim Sorry for the excessive editing of the answer. It took a while to get my head around it. I'm done now.
– Kusalananda
Nov 26 at 23:04
Thanks.
disown
makes a shell not sent SIGHUP to a child by removing the child from the shell's job list. How does disown -h
achieve the same?– Tim
Nov 26 at 23:14
Thanks.
disown
makes a shell not sent SIGHUP to a child by removing the child from the shell's job list. How does disown -h
achieve the same?– Tim
Nov 26 at 23:14
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
4
down vote
They are Different:
disown removes the job from the active jobs table. Then continues on with current job. With -h the proccess is NOT sent SIGHUP. It is instead left to die with the shell that contains it, when it recieves a SIGHUP.
nohup ignores the HUP. Then anything that would have been passed to the terminal by the proccess closing instead goes to a file
nohup.out
.
nohup is defined by POSIX while disown is not.
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
They are Different:
disown removes the job from the active jobs table. Then continues on with current job. With -h the proccess is NOT sent SIGHUP. It is instead left to die with the shell that contains it, when it recieves a SIGHUP.
nohup ignores the HUP. Then anything that would have been passed to the terminal by the proccess closing instead goes to a file
nohup.out
.
nohup is defined by POSIX while disown is not.
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
They are Different:
disown removes the job from the active jobs table. Then continues on with current job. With -h the proccess is NOT sent SIGHUP. It is instead left to die with the shell that contains it, when it recieves a SIGHUP.
nohup ignores the HUP. Then anything that would have been passed to the terminal by the proccess closing instead goes to a file
nohup.out
.
nohup is defined by POSIX while disown is not.
They are Different:
disown removes the job from the active jobs table. Then continues on with current job. With -h the proccess is NOT sent SIGHUP. It is instead left to die with the shell that contains it, when it recieves a SIGHUP.
nohup ignores the HUP. Then anything that would have been passed to the terminal by the proccess closing instead goes to a file
nohup.out
.
nohup is defined by POSIX while disown is not.
answered Nov 26 at 20:17
Michael Prokopec
94916
94916
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f484276%2fdo-disown-h-and-nohup-work-effectively-the-same%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Another difference not discussed here is that if you aren't using
nohup
, you need to redirect stdin/stdout/stderr away from the TTY (should your original shell be connected to one) yourself. (OTOH, I actually consider that better practice than relying on an egregious hardcoded default like./nohup.out
).– Charles Duffy
Nov 26 at 22:17