True. I think of it more as a semantic shift. In the old days, processes would actually quit and some other process would resurrect it as necessary, but then someone had the idea of having some processes catch the HUP and do all that itself without actually bothering any other processes.
And the implementation might actually involve an exec of the process’ own executable, meaning that it actually does self-terminate, but it leaves a child in its place.
Is this even true? I am fairly sure that Linux also has a graceful shutdown process, but I’ll admit I haven’t looked into it.
yeah we have SIGTERM for graceful and SIGKILL for not so graceful shutting down a process.
In order of decreasing politeness: 1, 2, 15, 9 = HUP, INT, TERM, KILL = “Please stop”, “Quit it”, “I’m warning you” and “BANG”
Hup is frequently just “hey, reread your configuration files and keep going”
True. I think of it more as a semantic shift. In the old days, processes would actually quit and some other process would resurrect it as necessary, but then someone had the idea of having some processes catch the HUP and do all that itself without actually bothering any other processes.
And the implementation might actually involve an
execof the process’ own executable, meaning that it actually does self-terminate, but it leaves a child in its place.9 kills all 9 lives is they way the hpunix guy explained it to me in the mid 90s
This is put so beautifully!