Tim Peters <tim.one@comcast.net> writes: > Yes. On Windows it wants a handle, because that's what spawn*() > returns on Windows. But, again, Windows processes aren't intended > to be killed externally. That sounds like FUD. Why is it that processes aren't intended to be killed? Because the assassin can't know what state the process is in, so the process may not complete correctly? This is a general problem with killing, not specific to Windows, and it never stopped a killer. Or can you crash the operating system or the killer process by terminating some other process? > Why do you need to kill a process externally? For example, why can't you > make "please stop now" a part of the protocol, so that a process can > terminate itself gracefully when told to? Because the process did not respond to the protocol. Should I kill it anyway and send a bug report to Microsoft? Regards, Martin
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4