Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

27
  • 19
    +1 Thanks. What happens when using disown, nohup and & together then? Commented Apr 2, 2015 at 14:27
  • 34
    If you use all three together, the process is running in the background, is removed from the shell's job control and is effectively disconnected from the terminal. Commented Apr 2, 2015 at 15:46
  • 4
    Thanks. I wonder why nohup alone doesn't save a google-chrome process from being closed, when the terminal from which it was started is closed? Commented Apr 2, 2015 at 16:19
  • 8
    Maybe worth including (foo&) subshell Commented Aug 25, 2016 at 12:32
  • 11
    As noted at unix.stackexchange.com/questions/446211 , the received wisdom that nohup disconnects from the controlling terminal is wrong. nohup closes some standard I/O streams and opens them elsewhere. It does not change session, attempt to affect the session's connection to a controlling terminal, or deal in process groups. Commented May 29, 2018 at 8:14