Subject: Re: virtual consoles/vs screen (Was: Amiga UNIX)
To: Kolbjxrn Barmen <>
From: David <>
List: amiga
Date: 01/17/1996 13:29:20
> On Wed, 10 Jan 1996, Shunsuke Baba wrote:
> [...] 
> Why isn't virtual consoles implemented ?
> How difficult would it be to implement it ?
> Why do some people seem to prefer "screen" instead of virtual consoles ?
	Screen & virtual consoles overlap significantly, but both have 
	features the other lacks - so get used in different circumstances.

	If you want to run X and a text console simultaneously then
	virtual consoles is the only way to go (I believe the i386 and arm6
	ports of netbsd use virtual consoles, I think the mac68k too).
	The reasons I use screen are:
		Ability to telnet into a machine and 'attach' to my screen
		session (I have several 'windows' connected to the consoles
		of the other machines in my cluster, and its useful to be
		able to work on a machine in single user mode (or even in
		the boot prom!) remotely).
		Scrollback - ohh yes, damn useful for the consoles :)
		Cut & paste between sessions (I dont know if VCs offer this).
	I know several users at who leave a screen session running
	then connect back in and reattach to all the windows they left

	Conclusion? Both should be available :)
	Someone should write a MI virtual console driver (with MD glue of
	course) so all ports can use it.

	The mac68k one sounded like it was an application you ran rather
	than being built into the kernel, so I dont know if it would allow
	X & a text console at the same time, but if it does.. that probably
	the best place to start :)

                   David/abs             (

+44 181 888 8949 System Manager, Southern Studios Ltd, Box 59, London N22 1AR
     >=- Microsoft asks you where you want to go. Unix gets you there -=<
        <<< Monochrome - Largest UK Internet BBS - telnet >>>