4 ms·
Conversely: I use ^S and ^Q _all the time_. I've got a long-running program that's spewing output to a terminal? ^S and it stops so I can look at it, copy outpu
by david-given 11y ago
Conversely: I use ^S and ^Q _all the time_. I've got a long-running program that's spewing output to a terminal? ^S and it stops so I can look at it, copy output elsewhere, etc. ^Q and it resumes again seamlessly.
It occurs to me that I grew up on the BBC Micro, where pressing Ctrl+Shift would pausing scrolling, so being able to do this is tightly engrained in muscle memory...
- mitchty 11y agoFair enough, though I tend to just use tee and/or tmux for things like that. Just turn logging on if I'm curious and let things continue on their merry way. Only time i've ever used it was when booting a system to stop output on a serial console. That was years ago and a one off basically.
- JadeNB 11y ago> Conversely: I use ^S and ^Q _all the time_. I've got a long-running program that's spewing output to a terminal? ^S and it stops so I can look at it, copy output elsewhere, etc. ^Q and it resumes again seamlessly. Why not ^Z and `fg`? (I'm sure that there's a subtle or not-so-subtle difference, but I've only ever suspended, never XOFF'd, so I don't know it.)
- JoshTriplett 11y ago^Z suspends the current application and returns to the program that ran it (typically the shell), which will then print a prompt. ^S and ^Q leave the output entirely undisturbed and unbroken.