Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell
Subject: nohup Versus setsid
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 04:23:42 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 5
Message-ID: <vbtqcd$2sce$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 06:23:42 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c5647ce48d163d1fa81e213bd6f20c9e";
	logging-data="94606"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+kR2e4rb20B6FkIJNd7xCD"
User-Agent: Pan/0.160 (Toresk; )
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+SSxudD3LnIu8KWyQgxMWP/GBeE=
Bytes: 1185

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). Compare the docs for
yourself <https://manpages.debian.org/1/nohup.1.en.html> vs
<https://manpages.debian.org/1/setsid.1.en.html>, and tell me why we
still need nohup when we have setsid?