Subject: Re: screen(1) vs. window(1)
To: None <,>
From: Greg A. Woods <>
List: tech-userlevel
Date: 06/01/2001 17:44:18
[[ note: re-directing to tech-userlevel ]]

[ On Friday, June 1, 2001 at 21:26:37 (+0200), 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      <>     <>
Planix, Inc. <>;   Secrets of the Weird <>