I wasn't the one who suggested using & in the first place. I suggested using screen as an alternative. On Sun, 14 Sep 2003, William Hooper wrote: > > Mike Burger said: > > A viable option, though a lot more overhead (bandwidth, memory, etc) than > > using screen. However, neither screen nor VNC will overcome the fact that > > if you put a process in the background using &, and then terminate the > > shell in which that process was running, you can't get that process back > > into the foreground. > > If you are using screen what would be the purpose of putting the process > in the background using "&"? You just run the process as normal and > disconnect from the screen session. When you log back in just reconnect > to the screen session. > > -- Mike Burger http://www.bubbanfriends.org Visit the Dog Pound II BBS telnet://dogpound2.citadel.org or http://dogpound2.citadel.org:2000 To be notified of updates to the web site, send a message to: site-update-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with a message of: subscribe -- Shrike-list mailing list Shrike-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/shrike-list
