Subject: Re: virtual consoles/vs screen (Was: Amiga UNIX)
To: Kolbjxrn Barmen <email@example.com>
From: David <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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 mono.org 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 :)
+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 mono.org >>>