The first thing to understand is an init process doesn't magically remove zombies. A (normal) init is designed to reap zombies when the parent process that failed to wait on them exits and the zombies hang around. The init process then becomes the zombies parent and they can be cleaned up.

It protects you from software that accidentally creates zombie processes, which can (over time!) starve your entire system for PIDs (and make it unusable).

reaping zombies

The second situation would be zombie reaping. If the process spawns child processes and does not properly reap them it will lead to a full process table

When a process loses its parent, init becomes its new parent. init periodically executes the wait system call to reap any zombies with init as parent.

Zombie processes should not be confused with orphan processes: an orphan process is a process that is still executing, but whose parent has died. When the parent dies, the orphaned child process is adopted by init (process ID 1). When orphan processes die, they do not remain as zombie processes; instead, they are waited on by init.

The result is that a process that is both a zombie and an orphan will be reaped automatically.

When a zombie is created (i.e. which happens when its parent exits, and therefore all chances of it ever being waited by it are gone), it is reparent to init, which is expected to reap it (which means calling wait on it).

In other words, someone has to clean up after "irresponsible" parents that leave their children un-wait'ed, and that's PID 1's job.

Have lost their parent (i.e. their parent exited as well), which means they'll never be waited on by their parent.

Now, unlike other processes, PID 1 has a unique responsibility, which is to reap zombie processes.

According to the Unix process model, the init process -- PID 1 -- inherits all orphaned child processes and must reap them. Most Docker containers do not have an init process that does this correctly. As a result, their containers become filled with zombie processes over time.

A low-level approach is to fork twice, running the desired process in the grandchild, and immediately terminating the child. The grandchild process is now orphaned, and is not adopted by its grandparent, but rather by init.

The process group mechanism in most Unix-like operating systems can be used to help protect against accidental orphaning, where in coordination with the user's shell will try to terminate all the child processes with the "hangup" signal (SIGHUP), rather than letting them continue to run as orphans.

In a Unix-like operating system any orphaned process will be immediately adopted by an implementation-defined system process: the kernel sets the parent to this process

Even though technically the process has a system process as its parent, it is still called an orphan process since the process that originally created it no longer exists.

Let's look at a concrete example. Suppose that your container contains a web server that runs a CGI script that's written in bash. The CGI script calls grep. Then the web server decides that the CGI script is taking too long and kills the script, but grep is not affected and keeps running. When grep finishes, it becomes a zombie and is adopted by the PID 1 (the web server). The web server doesn't know about grep, so it doesn't reap it, and the grep zombie stays in the system.

Ether lost in transfer

12. 2017. What is the maximum length of a URL in differentbrowsers?http://stackoverflow.com/questions/417142/what-is-the-maximum-length-of-a-url-in-different-browsers. (2017).

1. 2013. A History of Live Programming.http://liveprogramming.github.io/liveblog/2013/01/a-history-of-live-programming/. (Jan. 2013).

20. Andrew Cantino. 2017. SelectorGadget: point and clickCSS selectors.http://selectorgadget.com/. (2017).

32. Donald E. Knuth. 1984. Literate Programming.Comput.J.27, 2 (May 1984), 97–111.DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/27.2.97

African Orphan Crops

“orphan crop”

the problem of orphan works—those whose copyright status is murky—is yet to be solved.

Effective Copyright Policy: Copyrights encourage creativity and incentivize innovators to invest knowledge, time, and money into the generation of myriad forms of content. However, the copyright system has languished for many decades, and is in need of administrative reform to maximize its benefits in the digital age. Hillary believes the federal government should modernize the copyright system by unlocking—and facilitating access to—orphan works that languished unutilized, benefiting neither their creators nor the public. She will also promote open-licensing arrangements for copyrighted material and data supported by federal grant funding, including in education, science, and other fields. She will seek to develop technological infrastructure to support digitization, search, and repositories of such content, to facilitate its discoverability and use.   And she will encourage stakeholders to work together on creative solutions that remove barriers to the seamless and efficient licensing of content in the U.S. and abroad.

In rare cases, a questionable, published paper may acquire“orphan” status (Rennie & Flanagin, 1994, p. 469), as allconcerned try to wash their hands of it, invoking hyperlaborspecialization as grounds for exoneration. Such a scenario isinconceivable under the standard model, where authorshipand accountability are isomorphic. But when authorship/ownership of a study is distributed across multiple contrib-utors, many of whom may have zero or weak relation-ships—whether personal or institutional—with their myriadcoworkers (Katz & Martin, 1997), the practical (i.e., en-forceable) allocation of accountability may pose intractableproblems

that doesn't mean the drugs can't be immensely profitable. Treanda is an orphan drug but also Teva's second-best seller, racking up $740 million in sales last year, according to Teva's annual report.