Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

7
  • 4
    Yes. Don't run an inherently interactive process in the background Commented Sep 11, 2022 at 13:53
  • @roaima how does this comment helps? This is an example. I run a process, which apparently do something to the terminal. Commented Sep 11, 2022 at 15:44
  • You're running a process (watch) that is designed to be run as an interactive process in the foreground that takes over and uses the entire terminal screen Commented Sep 11, 2022 at 16:21
  • watch was an example for a process who changes the terminal. This is a reproducible example that one can take and modify -> in case this issue is solvable. Are reproducible examples wrong? Commented Sep 11, 2022 at 18:11
  • Reproducible examples are great. The premise still stands though: don't run a tool that expects to control the entire screen in the background. watch is one example. vi[m] would be another except that it cleanly refuses to run at all if pushed the background. nethack might be another but I don't have it installed. Commented Sep 11, 2022 at 18:15