On 01/06/16 11:41, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> You've obviously never had to run something that's going
to take hours
> or days to complete on a remote server and not wanted it to abort half
> way through because of a network glitch then.
Yeah, I never used nohup. *roll eyes*
Sure, nohup is like the cheap version of screen, and systemd-run would
do something basically equivalent when linger is enabled.
The advantage of screen is being able to interact with the process when
necessary, for example when doing an OS upgrade on a remote machine and
it want to ask you questions.
> That's when I use screen, either just setting running
something in the
> background, or leaving it connected but knowing it will continue if
> anything goes wrong and I can just reattach from a new login.
The screen manual says "Screen is a full-screen window manager that
multiplexes a physical terminal between several processes (typically
Sure, and I don't generally use any of that. I'm a very simple screen
user and just use it for long running tasks that I need to be able to
monitor the output of or interact with remotely.
I'm not against the change in systemd at all, I would just like cleaner
ways to make the handful of things like screen and tmux continue to work.
Tom Hughes (tom(a)compton.nu)