On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Tony Cebzanov <to...@tonyc.org> wrote: > Aaron Davies wrote: >> not to be non-responsive, but wouldn't it be a lot easier to use >> growlnotify or osascript to communicate with growl? > > Sure, when the terminal session that's sending the notifications is on > my Mac, but I'm often SSHed into half a dozen different hosts running > other OSes. I've seen references online to hacks where people use a > Perl module on, say, a Linux box to communicate with Growl, but then I > have to either maintain a SSH tunnel back from every host I connect to, > or leave a port wide open to receive growl notifications from any host, > which, while it would bring back some fun memories of computer lab > pranks involving Windows machines and NET SEND, wouldn't be very secure > or productive.
fair enough. i wasn't thinking of that use case, but i see now how it could be very handy. i often define "beep" and "beeps" (based on echo -e '\a') aliases as a very crude version of the same concept. (e.g., "wget hugefile; beep".) > IMHO, the beauty of the control sequence solution is that it could be > used on any host I'm logged into, and all it would require would be > screen passing on the control sequence unaltered, or, to support > background notifications, picking up the control sequence from a > background screen window and replaying it to the terminal app. Unless > I'm missing something... maybe you could use the hardstatus as a backchannel? massive hack, but if a window's name included a file's contents or a command output, perhaps that could be used to trigger growl. (it could fail if you used nested screens, of course) -- Aaron Davies aaron.dav...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ screen-users mailing list screen-users@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/screen-users
