X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-ID: <4B97C735.1020205@towo.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:22:13 +0100
From: Thomas Wolff <towo AT towo DOT net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: terminals getting killed on parent's termination
References: <201002261446 DOT o1QEki2k024924 AT mail DOT bln1 DOT bf DOT nsn-intra DOT net> 	 <416096c61002261229j31f92387u8b8e3e9b716cb131 AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> 	 <4B8BEACA DOT 4010003 AT towo DOT net> 	 <416096c61003051251k56e7fed6s9976b2d96bae69e7 AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> 	 <4B965367 DOT 4090402 AT towo DOT net> <416096c61003091540i423fec92sed32633bac4ad1fc AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <416096c61003091540i423fec92sed32633bac4ad1fc@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

Andy Koppe wrote:
> Thomas Wolff:
>    
>>> Closing the terminal that a program was started from is not a completely
>>> unrelated event,
>>>        
>> this is also a matter of taste and use case but just using a command line to
>> *start* an application does not indicate the intent that the command line
>> should continue to *host* the application in the sense of a session.
>>      
> That's your opinion, but apparently it's not what the designers of
> either Unix or X(lib) thought, because otherwise they could have
> disabled SIGHUP by default. An example of Unix's sharp-edged "the user
> knows best" philosophy, I guess. (Not that I'm a great fan of that
> philosophy, as I've run 'rm -r' on the wrong directory often enough.)
>    
Excellently pointed out. And it doesn't help the user sufficiently if 
some applications try to "do better" (as I'd say, and as I had perceived 
to be common practice) while others don't. On the other hand, the "MS 
knows best" philosophy isn't my favourite either...

>> My case is that sturdiness of an application against external impact is the more
>> desirable the more interactive and potentially unsaved data it maintains.
>>      
> Now that's something I can agree with.
>    
And thanks for the corresponding mintty enhancement.

>> Your survey above may also be interpreted this way: the most established
>> terminals (xterm, rxvt-unicode) do maintain this stability, while some
>> "newcomers" don't care (yet).
>>      
> Or put another way: they've been around long enough to have had enough
> complaints about it, and I do wonder whether one T.Wolff had something
> to do with it. ;)
>    
Not in this case, honestly :-D
(And I checked that a 1999 Sun version of xterm had the same behaviour 
already, as do cxterm, hanterm and kterm which forked off from xterm 
quite early.)

------
Thomas

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple