AC> 'polite' like SIGKILL? A process can't be killed if it 
 AC> doesn't want to be? :-(

That's correct;  if a process goes to the trouble to catch & ignore the
SIG_KILLPROCESS signal,  it can not be killed.  OS/2 starts up a few of
these (HARDERR.EXE, CACHE.EXE (if WPS didn't start it)).

There are very few reasons that someone like you or me would need to do
this.  It may be ok to catch the signal (to perform some sort of cleanup), 
but we shouldn't ignore the signal.


--- Maximus/2 2.02p1