On 3/4/11 12:15 AM, Dr. Ed Morbius wrote:
>
>
>> I do like the way gnome collapses the icons in the task bar when you
>> have enough of them - and pops up the list so you can see it. It
>> makes it easy to find the terminal session connected to some
>> particular remote host.
>
> WindowMaker has a windowlist. Even better. I usually last 1-4 hours
> when I periodically try GNOME. KDE and XFCE I might last a few days.
> Then it's back to the One True Window Manager.
I don't care about the mechanism so much as having everything I do on one
screen, under one window manager. So all of my terminal sessions collapse in
one place that becomes a popup list. Likewise all of my firefox windows (and
for this reason I like separate windows better than tabs).
>>> I'm really just fine with terminal windows and SSH-forwarded apps if
>>> those are necessary.
>>
>> But why do you need screen, then?
>
> Terminal multiplexing, session persistance, scrollback/logging, split
> screen (top running in the top panel, shell underneath, etc.), workflow
> organization (similar processes are grouped in a screen session).
But all of that just happens by itself in a GUI screen and isn't limited to text
mode.
> I'm writing this mail in mutt, in a screen session with multiple
> mailboxes open, each to its own screen window. It's like a multi-tabbed
> GNOME or KDE terminal, except that the session persists even if the
> controlling terminal is killed, or X dies altogether.
Yes, but you are limited to text mode apps. I actually have a GUI session that
persists even if my local connection breaks. And it performs pretty well when I
pick it up remotely. And I can't recall a time when the server side of the X
connection ever died.
> Screen is one of those amazingly powerful Linux tools, once you stumble
> across it.
But NX/freenx does the same and more. The only down side I can see is the time
for the initial screen draw over a slow connection.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com