Anonymous user
Talk:Run as a daemon or service: Difference between revisions
→Doh, use screen!: Some things invoke the name of Codethulhu!
(→Doh, use screen!: Some things invoke the name of Codethulhu!) |
|||
Line 123:
::: so multiple daemons in one screen session is not practical either. there are ways around it (eg. by running <code>script</code>) but that's just another complication.
::: i am afraid we just have to agree to disagree. in my view screen is for interactive sessions. a daemon is not interactive, and there are better tools out there to run programs in the background than screen. either way, this task is not about any of those existing tools but about the capability of a language to build such a tool--[[User:EMBee|eMBee]] 06:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
: From my perspective, the problem with screen is that it is a manual solution at all. Daemons should run without having someone start them up by hand; after all, if it is a true daemon then it will have been set to be started automatically upon reboot of the machine (or on demand by some automated code that is itself auto-started). While I suppose I could automate screen's startup with the use of expect, the resulting hacked together lash up(/ball of mud/screaming horror from the depths) is enough to give me shivers just thinking about it. Screen is ''not'' a solution to this problem. –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 09:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
| |||