On 10/21/11 15:14, Andrew Piskorski wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 09:10:18AM -0400, Prentice Bisbal wrote: > >> My opinion is these these are shared resources, and if you aren't >> interactively using them, you should log out to free up resources for >> others. > > "running under screen" != "non-interactive".
What I think Prentice was pointing out here was more along the lines of: "non-interactive" >= "running under screen" <= interactive Where interactivity is more of a spectrum than a != or =. More pointedly, he stated his users are acting in a non-interactive manner, in some cases even after they leave, which is irresponsible at all levels. Obviously he has to balance a rule-set between the good users and the bad users, such that abuse isn't quite as easy. >> I would like to remove screen from my environment entirely to prevent >> this. My fellow sysadmins here agree. I'm expecting massive backlash >> from the users. > > No shit. If you allow users to login at all, then (IMNSHO) removing > screen is insane. That's not a solution to your problem, that's > creating a totally new problem and pretending it's a solution. Insane? I mean, I do a lot of work on a bunch of different distros and hardware types, and have found little use for screen /unless/ I was on a really, really poor internet connection that cut out on the minutes level. Can you give some examples regarding something you can do with screen you cannot do with nohup and tail? > I essentially always use screen whenever I ssh to any Linux box for > any reason. But why? Just leave a terminal open if you want interactivity, otherwise nohup something. Perhaps I've understated screen's usefulness, but I'm glad to be corrected/educated on it's efficacy in this area. Best, ellis _______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org sponsored by Penguin Computing To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
