Subject: Re: screen(1) vs. window(1)
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org,>
From: Greg A. Woods <email@example.com>
Date: 06/01/2001 17:44:18
[[ note: re-directing to tech-userlevel ]]
[ On Friday, June 1, 2001 at 21:26:37 (+0200), firstname.lastname@example.org wrote: ]
> Subject: OT: screen(1) vs. window(1) (was: Re: Patch to add console scrollba ck support.)
> I never used that much sessions. I use normaly only 3 or 4. But I don't
> expect any problems using 8 sessions.
> One advantage of window(1) is that it is included in the base system. No
> extra pkgsrc comiles are needed.
One super-major disadvantage of 'window' is that it can't detach and
reattach sessions (and most importantly do it automatically on SIGHUP
from the main tty) like 'screen' can.
I personally think 'screen' is way too feature-bloated and would like to
see 'window' learn to detach and reattach, but I doubt I'll ever find
the time and incentive to implement it myself.... :-(
I don't like installing screen everywhere and as a result I rarely use
it even when its ability to save my session during a hangup would be
incredibly useful to me. (I've had very important jobs get killed in
the middle because ssh timed out after too many packets were dropped, etc.)
> The same for bash(1) vs. ksh(1). Since
> I discovered the capabilities of the pdksh(1), that is the ksh(1) of
> NetBSD, I never wanted to install bash(1) again.
Yeah, I really hate it when people ask me to install 'bash'. I refuse
to have that horrible excuse for a shell on my systems! What a waste.
(same goes for csh/tcsh too! ;-)
Heck even /bin/sh on NetBSD is almost as usable! ;-)
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Planix, Inc. <email@example.com>; Secrets of the Weird <firstname.lastname@example.org>