Firstly, this question is currently active on meta.SO here. They think that my question SO here would be more relevant here, and are willing to migrate it if you think so as well. Consider the below in regards to the eligibility of the question for Unix.SE.

As from my original post on meta.SO:

I currently have a question on stack overflow here that has a historical element to it. While the majority of the question asks about the behaviour as it exists today, there is this sentence:

The book clearly wants to make a point of why it's different, so if anyone knows why historically it didn't used to be a session leader, and why it is now, that'd be excellent.

I do wonder if this question is appropriate for stack overflow. I wouldn't normally ask questions with a historical element, but I feel in this case it is fairly essential to the question. Despite requiring some history, I don't think the question is opinion based and I'm sure it has a concrete answer out there. Indeed, some of the best answers on this site delve into a bit of history first.

I'd love to hear some insight about this.

1 Answer 1


I don't really see anything about programming there. Yes, fork is relevant, but you're not asking about fork, you're asking i) whether rsyslogd is indeed a session leader and your book is wrong; ii) if that's a new systemd thing and the book was right for its time and iii) assuming it was right for its time, what where the reasons it was implemented that way and, perhaps, what changed for systemd.

If I interpret this correctly, then your question is perfectly on topic here and off topic on SO. In other words, yes, bring it over.

  • Sounds good, I'll report back. Dec 22, 2016 at 12:47

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .