Re: Q: how do I open xterm, run command, and continue manual input?

From: Alan Connor (xxxxxx_at_xxxx.xxx)
Date: 07/27/03 

Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 22:57:31 GMT

On 26 Jul 2003 14:07:01 -0800, Floyd Davidson <floyd@barrow.com> wrote:
>
>
> Kati <Kati@NOSPAMkati.cc> wrote:
>>> that's better than any graphical one I've seen. Will send you a little
>>> tutorial and a .screenrc I put together, if you like.
>>
>>Yes I would like that, it would be great!
>>Kati
>
> Think twice about that.
>
> It has exactly one advantage: if you have an old computer that is
> slow and has very little RAM, screen will work when other methods
> won't. (I.e., if you can't use X and a window manager, use screen.)
>

That's a matter of preference, rather than some absolute, as you assert.
Screen is in fact a much more useful window manager than the GUI ones.

> But if you can run X and one of the lighter weight window managers,
> such as fvwm2, that is *far* more productive. Indeed, the idea of
> running screen in an xterm is simply hilarious.
>

No. The individual windows in screen use far less resources than seperate
GUI windows, including xterms, and one can manage Xapps from there, which
is really not practical from a straight tty.

> Instead use a small window manager that provides virtual
> desktops. Then you can invoke multiple xterms in each of those
> virtual desktops. Switching between either multiple xterms in
> one desktop or between the available desktops, not to mention
> just keeping track of what you have and where it is, is *far*
> easier with that arrangement simply because in addition to
> _every_ method provided by screen, you now also have the methods
> provided by the window manager (graphic visual indications, and
> the ability to select windows and/or xterms with with a mouse)
> which are often quicker.

Nonsense. You can do all of that and more in screen, with a fraction of
the resources.

I use a menu written in bash as my list of "icons". Fast and clean.

>
> For example, I use fvwm2 as a window manager. I do *not* like
> icons, and basically run almost everything from a shell in an
> xterm. There are some exceptions to that, and I do have a
> "button bar" across the top of my screen, from which I can
> invoke xcalc, xmag, netscape, two local databases (my
> telephone/address book, for example), and from which I can view
> a clock and output from xload and xsysinfo. Those are the type
> of things that *should* be available from an icon (they are not
> tied to any specific directory).

I do all that and more with simple bashscripts and screen.

>
> But the part you are interested in is fvwm2's "pager", which is
> a graphical display of virtual desktops. What I have is
> arranged as a vertical stack of 15 squares on the left edge of
> my monitor screen. Each square represents a virtual desktop. I
> can switch to any one of them by clicking the mouse on that
> square, or with a keyboard entry using Cntl-Up or Cntl-Dn to
> move up or down the list.
>
> Of course in each virtual desktop there can be any number of
> windows open. Typically I do unique things in a specific
> desktop, and may have several xterms or other windows open in
> any given desktop, but all will be related. For example, I'm
> writing this in the second desktop down the list, and there is
> one window open for XEmacs and another window with xterm and
> shell command line. Other desktops might have half a dozen
> xterms running, or may have none (netscape, xtetris, etc. are
> programs I tend to leave by themselves as the only window in a
> desktop).
>

Welcome to disneyland. What a waste of resources.

> Not that you cannot do the above with screen, because you can.
> It is not as easy to keep track of, and that will tend to limit
> how many things you keep going all at once

Not at all.

. If you happen to
> have the kind of memory where you can jump to any of 10 to 15
> screens at once because you remember what was where,

You don't really know screen. You don't have to remember what is diplayed
at the bottom of every window.

 then the
> difference isn't as great. If you're like me and don't like vi
> because you can't remember which mode you're in from one moment
> to the next... you'll find the difference is day and night.
>
> [That's a bit of a verbose description, but even then it may not
> form a very good picture in your mind of exactly what I'm
> describing. If you'd like to see a few images of what I'm
> looking at on my monitor, send me email.]
>

It is plain to see that you don't really know screen at all, and are just an
eye-candy/GUI addict.

Otherwise, you wouldn't have gone off the deep end.

LOT'S of gurus and pros use screen, and they use it in an xterm.

You are, quite simply, and for the first time in my experience,

full of *** to your eyeballs.

I have TRIED it your way, and it is a pain in the *** and slow and uses
massive system resources to do nothing but provide eye-candy and confusion
and requires the use of a mouse which takes your hands from the keyboard and
screws up your commandline performance.

I won't be reading anything further you have to say on the subject, because
you don't know what you are talking about.

You are just another GUI fanatic that can't, for reasons unfathomable to me,
stand it when someone else chooses a different way to run their computer.

I learned this from gurus that make YOU look like a newbie.

Alan 

-- 
       For Linux/Bash users: Eliminate spam from your life
       with the Mailbox-Sentry-Program. See the thread
       MSP on comp.mail.misc.