Phil,
I tried something like that once and found it too annoying. Mainly, I ran into the oddball sorts
of TERMCAP / backspace / etc. issues too often when logging in from "strange" hosts.
Also, what happens when you ssh from host A to host B? If every session I have open is runs
screen, it really messes with ssh'ing host to host. It's those sort of issues that lead me to
desire a "screen-ultra-lite" that is always safe to fork into.
Some parts of it become less annoying if screen sprouts the ability to hand
FDs between instances of itself on the local host. The nested-instance issue,
though, only starts to become sane if screen learns how to detect the nested
instance and has a protocol for giving the illusion that the top-level and
nested instances are a single instance. (That actually would be really cool.)
(BTW, I apologize for the new Outlook-style message quoting and formatting. I
need to see if I can somehow switch the new Yahoo email beta to do more
traditional-style email quoting and formatting.)
Regards,
--Joe
We sell Spatulas, and that's all!http://spatula-city.org/~im14u2c/
http://sdk-1600.spatula-city.org/
http://intyos.spatula-city.org/
----- Original Message ----
From: Phil!Gregory <address@hidden>
To: address@hidden
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 10:46:17 AM
Subject: Re: attaching detached sessions to the current one
* Joe Zbiciak <address@hidden> [2006-05-16 06:34 -0700]:
> If screen develops the capability to import TTY FDs from another
> process, then the answer may be as simple as a wrapper around your shell
> that does little more than hold the FDs for your TTY, and pipes them
> through.
But then you'd have to manually set up the wrapper to run on all of your
processes. As long as you're going to the trouble, why not just make the
leap and run everything in screen? That's what I do, and it means that I
never have to worry that something might not be detachable.