We should put an end to saying "orphan", "kill child", "zombie".
Anyone,
We should change the awful metaphors used in the language of managing Unix processes. I believe that this still humbly local initiative hides a great importance of how the world of Unix looks and feels to every user.
Example:
No more "kill". Use stop, remove or whatever else. It doesn't matter if that's already taken, we will always have vast language reserves.
If a process can be called a child/parrent then it should not be "killed" and "reaped", but collected. I prefer the playground to the graveyard, don't know about you.
Think about the already present "forest" metaphor. We could have roots an branches again. Or to seas, flows and rivers. Or flocks and packs. Or kings, counts, servants and agents. If we could "dam", "stem", "draw", why should we kill?
Since this is standard, it can change. One shouldn't think about how great a challenge it, one should just start walking against it.
You might feel this is irrelevant to what is actually done with a computer system and what it's for. But it's a fact that metaphors are used in illustrations of knowledge as well as in making the world we live and work in ours. If we care for what we wear and what you have in the house, why shouldn't you care of the words and ideas with which you express what you are doing?
I start today by creating links/aliases for the commands I don't like to hear on each of the 50 or so real and virtual machines I set foot on.
Kill, child, orphan, zombie and the likes are there since the seventies and are unlikely to disappear in the Unix context. They are actually pretty good metaphors while perhaps not "politically correct". Your proposal reminds me how many Unix people were upset when directories started to be referred as folders. Gratuitous changes are usually not welcome.
The first example is interesting as kill, both as a system call and a command, is a partly a misnomer. Kill is sending a signal to a process that effectively kill that process or not depending on settings. Its most frequent use is to kill so the name still seems adequate to me.
"stop" won't do as it is an existing special case which imply the process is resumable. "remove" might also be confusing as it is so commonly associated with unlinking a file.
You might want to post your aliases and start a poll about them ...
I really don't understand or get the point in seeing what goodness its going to bring on whatever the list is going to change.
Are we trying to think/simulate something like, object modeling using real world elements with respect to a class design, to that of normal/casual/accepted words or order/request usage and the naming of processes/tools/utilities in unix. This when extended you might be even considering to restrict filename creation in unix to restricted filenames and not having profanity or criticism in the filenames created, did you?
Its a system, ask it to do it, it will do it, which means you got to tell that how to do it. ( Not the AI programs/softwares where the base intelligence and intelligence to improve is also instructed )
Oh, my goodness! The GOod PEople(tm) are on the loose!
Well, if we want to rename "kill" to "stop" why not rename "yes" to "just_say_no" or "tar" to a lightweight "feather"? How about renaming "cat" to something less ridiculuos to our other four-legged friends. With respect to our canine friends there should be a "dog" along with the "cat", yes? Not to mention some cozy (and probably rapidly-spawning) "rabbit" process, a "guinea-pig" and some cuddly "teddybear".
Not to forget the rude "du", which could be called "please_i_beg_your_pardon_but_isn't_this_obvious_already" and "shutdown" could be named "actively_seeking_chapter_eleven_protection_while_setting_free_some_workers_in_a_socially_acceptable_way" - hey, its even a lot easier to type that way, no?
How about signals? Hey, there is one called - horribile dictu - ABORT. Shouldn't this be called "CHOICE" from now on - or, better yet, be removed from the system in favour of a "LIFE" signal, which duplicates the process against the will of the system administrator? After all, as Jesus has no qualms with people killing people once they are grown up but detests people removing amorphous cell heaps he sure prefers system crashes over the stopping of processes not allowed to do all their intended purposes.
And, finally, how about renaming UNIX to "PC" (procreatively challenged)?
The fact is that there will always be someone who feels the need to make all they see conform to their subjective and restrictive view of the actual relationships of arbitrary systems. Suggesting that "kill" in the unix world has anything to do with humans is not reasonable and points to a more disturbing underlying belief of some people that technical forums should be used as a vehicle of nebulous conformity. That was the reason for my reference to AOL and divine intervention.
I have been here since the internet consisted of less than 1200 modems. Since AOL, there has been dulling of something truly brilliant. I had hoped this would have been something along the James Burke experience rather than what I see today
No, these terms in the computer world have zero to do with the real world of humans.
Since the original poster just dropped into the forums out of nowhere, has only posted one post (this one), which resembles a troll post, just to cause controversy, I recommend to the mods that we close this thread, if the mods see fit to do so.
I really don't see the point of this post about people being "offended" by a term used in computers. People also use the word "kill" to describe turning off engines, lawn mowers, projects, budgets, etc. Zombie and orphan is used in similar ways.
In line with Neo's observation about the OP, Jim and jp2542a's suggestion and my own thoughts on the subject I am closing this tread. I don't believe it has any value.
)