Run true multiple process instances of gnome-terminal
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
If you have gnome-terminal
running, and want a new instance of the program, you might think that running gnome-terminal &
from a shell would do the trick.
Astonishingly, this new instance behaves like some insipid Windows or Mac program; it only sends a message to the existing, running gnome-terminal
to create a new window. If this one gnome-terminal
process crashes, you lose all of the terminal windows!
(Of course, each window has its own shell, which is an independent process, but the actual terminal emulator and its GUI are managed from a single instance of the application.)
How can we create independent instances of gnome-terminal
, each running in their own process, so that killing that process only destroys the window(s) associated with that process?
gnome-terminal
add a comment |
If you have gnome-terminal
running, and want a new instance of the program, you might think that running gnome-terminal &
from a shell would do the trick.
Astonishingly, this new instance behaves like some insipid Windows or Mac program; it only sends a message to the existing, running gnome-terminal
to create a new window. If this one gnome-terminal
process crashes, you lose all of the terminal windows!
(Of course, each window has its own shell, which is an independent process, but the actual terminal emulator and its GUI are managed from a single instance of the application.)
How can we create independent instances of gnome-terminal
, each running in their own process, so that killing that process only destroys the window(s) associated with that process?
gnome-terminal
You may have success withgnome-terminal --disable-factory
, however support for it is apparently being witdrawn
– steeldriver
May 7 '15 at 1:01
@steeldriver It seems to be working; care to make it into an answer? I don't care about support being withdrawn. Why is this so hard to find? Because the documentation for--disable-factory
doesn't use any standard terminology like "start in a new process (or address space); do not re-use the existing instance".
– Kaz
May 7 '15 at 1:06
Compare unix.stackexchange.com/questions/323663
– JdeBP
Nov 17 '16 at 20:02
2
I can't believe the people running these projects keep making such crappy decisions. Did we learn nothing? Who cares about sparing some kilobytes of RAM? One would think that keeping the terminals from crashing each other should be the #1 priority. Back torxvt
I guess.
– Tobia
Nov 21 '16 at 12:12
In fact, I can recommendrxvt
to anybody wanting a true multi-process terminal. It has Truetype font support, re-wrapping of long lines, and most other features of modern terminals.
– Tobia
Nov 22 '16 at 13:50
add a comment |
If you have gnome-terminal
running, and want a new instance of the program, you might think that running gnome-terminal &
from a shell would do the trick.
Astonishingly, this new instance behaves like some insipid Windows or Mac program; it only sends a message to the existing, running gnome-terminal
to create a new window. If this one gnome-terminal
process crashes, you lose all of the terminal windows!
(Of course, each window has its own shell, which is an independent process, but the actual terminal emulator and its GUI are managed from a single instance of the application.)
How can we create independent instances of gnome-terminal
, each running in their own process, so that killing that process only destroys the window(s) associated with that process?
gnome-terminal
If you have gnome-terminal
running, and want a new instance of the program, you might think that running gnome-terminal &
from a shell would do the trick.
Astonishingly, this new instance behaves like some insipid Windows or Mac program; it only sends a message to the existing, running gnome-terminal
to create a new window. If this one gnome-terminal
process crashes, you lose all of the terminal windows!
(Of course, each window has its own shell, which is an independent process, but the actual terminal emulator and its GUI are managed from a single instance of the application.)
How can we create independent instances of gnome-terminal
, each running in their own process, so that killing that process only destroys the window(s) associated with that process?
gnome-terminal
gnome-terminal
edited May 7 '15 at 0:13
Kaz
asked May 7 '15 at 0:04
KazKaz
4,70811733
4,70811733
You may have success withgnome-terminal --disable-factory
, however support for it is apparently being witdrawn
– steeldriver
May 7 '15 at 1:01
@steeldriver It seems to be working; care to make it into an answer? I don't care about support being withdrawn. Why is this so hard to find? Because the documentation for--disable-factory
doesn't use any standard terminology like "start in a new process (or address space); do not re-use the existing instance".
– Kaz
May 7 '15 at 1:06
Compare unix.stackexchange.com/questions/323663
– JdeBP
Nov 17 '16 at 20:02
2
I can't believe the people running these projects keep making such crappy decisions. Did we learn nothing? Who cares about sparing some kilobytes of RAM? One would think that keeping the terminals from crashing each other should be the #1 priority. Back torxvt
I guess.
– Tobia
Nov 21 '16 at 12:12
In fact, I can recommendrxvt
to anybody wanting a true multi-process terminal. It has Truetype font support, re-wrapping of long lines, and most other features of modern terminals.
– Tobia
Nov 22 '16 at 13:50
add a comment |
You may have success withgnome-terminal --disable-factory
, however support for it is apparently being witdrawn
– steeldriver
May 7 '15 at 1:01
@steeldriver It seems to be working; care to make it into an answer? I don't care about support being withdrawn. Why is this so hard to find? Because the documentation for--disable-factory
doesn't use any standard terminology like "start in a new process (or address space); do not re-use the existing instance".
– Kaz
May 7 '15 at 1:06
Compare unix.stackexchange.com/questions/323663
– JdeBP
Nov 17 '16 at 20:02
2
I can't believe the people running these projects keep making such crappy decisions. Did we learn nothing? Who cares about sparing some kilobytes of RAM? One would think that keeping the terminals from crashing each other should be the #1 priority. Back torxvt
I guess.
– Tobia
Nov 21 '16 at 12:12
In fact, I can recommendrxvt
to anybody wanting a true multi-process terminal. It has Truetype font support, re-wrapping of long lines, and most other features of modern terminals.
– Tobia
Nov 22 '16 at 13:50
You may have success with
gnome-terminal --disable-factory
, however support for it is apparently being witdrawn– steeldriver
May 7 '15 at 1:01
You may have success with
gnome-terminal --disable-factory
, however support for it is apparently being witdrawn– steeldriver
May 7 '15 at 1:01
@steeldriver It seems to be working; care to make it into an answer? I don't care about support being withdrawn. Why is this so hard to find? Because the documentation for
--disable-factory
doesn't use any standard terminology like "start in a new process (or address space); do not re-use the existing instance".– Kaz
May 7 '15 at 1:06
@steeldriver It seems to be working; care to make it into an answer? I don't care about support being withdrawn. Why is this so hard to find? Because the documentation for
--disable-factory
doesn't use any standard terminology like "start in a new process (or address space); do not re-use the existing instance".– Kaz
May 7 '15 at 1:06
Compare unix.stackexchange.com/questions/323663
– JdeBP
Nov 17 '16 at 20:02
Compare unix.stackexchange.com/questions/323663
– JdeBP
Nov 17 '16 at 20:02
2
2
I can't believe the people running these projects keep making such crappy decisions. Did we learn nothing? Who cares about sparing some kilobytes of RAM? One would think that keeping the terminals from crashing each other should be the #1 priority. Back to
rxvt
I guess.– Tobia
Nov 21 '16 at 12:12
I can't believe the people running these projects keep making such crappy decisions. Did we learn nothing? Who cares about sparing some kilobytes of RAM? One would think that keeping the terminals from crashing each other should be the #1 priority. Back to
rxvt
I guess.– Tobia
Nov 21 '16 at 12:12
In fact, I can recommend
rxvt
to anybody wanting a true multi-process terminal. It has Truetype font support, re-wrapping of long lines, and most other features of modern terminals.– Tobia
Nov 22 '16 at 13:50
In fact, I can recommend
rxvt
to anybody wanting a true multi-process terminal. It has Truetype font support, re-wrapping of long lines, and most other features of modern terminals.– Tobia
Nov 22 '16 at 13:50
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
According to man gnome-terminal
, the option you're looking for appears to be the confusingly-named
--disable-factory
Do not register with the activation name server, do
not re-use an active terminal.
However, the option is apparently removed in more recent releases so should not be relied on.
This works great. By the time the pinheads remove this feature, I will likely no longer care. I need this in a test setup where more than ten terminal windows are open: some running minicom to various serial lines connecting to embedded devices, and others are sitting in test script directories, and such. gnome-terminal has the best features for resizing with good looking, readable fonts at every size. Unfortunately, it leaks memory like crazy, growing to 2GB in the course of a week. Separate processes will help contain this problem, making it more manageable.
– Kaz
May 7 '15 at 19:11
I tried rxvt, aterm, eterm, xterm, Terminator and a few others. They all easily run as separate processes, of course, but suck in other ways. The documented resizing hotkeys of rxvt wouldn't work. Aterm and xterm plain suck in that department. Terminator has weird resizing that changes the font size without the window size. ETerm just has completely wacky resizing with four fixed fonts; I played with the options for about 30 minutes, then uninstalled it.
– Kaz
May 7 '15 at 19:13
@Kaz xterm +xdotool --window "$WINDOWID"
?
– Gilles
May 7 '15 at 19:52
@Kaz You're probably way over it but I highly recommendurxvt
overrxvt
. And yes,gnome-terminal
is still graphically superior but I somehow learned not to miss it. It probably has a lot to do with new window manager (usingi3
now but it's not for everyone).
– cprn
Jan 8 '17 at 0:14
Look into any of the dozen other libvte based terminals? Gnome-terminal is just one application that ends up interfacing with that library on the backend unlike the rest mentioned above that use their own terminal implementations.
– dragon788
Aug 7 '18 at 18:19
add a comment |
Due to the new client/server architecture (details here) you'll have to start separate instances of gnome-terminal-server
. To do that you could use the --app-id
switch:
/usr/lib/gnome-terminal/gnome-terminal-server --app-id my.first.Terminal
then use the client (with the same app-id) to create terminals1 inside the new server :
gnome-terminal --app-id my.first.Terminal
gnome-terminal --full-screen --app-id my.first.Terminal
......
Another instance:
/usr/lib/gnome-terminal/gnome-terminal-server --app-id my.second.Terminal
and terminals:
gnome-terminal --geometry 80x24+200+200 --app-id my.second.Terminal
gnome-terminal --app-id my.second.Terminal
.....
Path to gnome-terminal-server
might be different on your system.
1: Note that "you have 10 seconds to use the client to create a terminal inside the new server".
Can you give a working example or take a look at this question?: unix.stackexchange.com/questions/304269/…
– cprn
Aug 29 '16 at 16:57
@CyprianGuerra - in a gnome-terminal open two tabs: in the first tab run the 1st command in my example (that is to start the new server) then, in less than 10 seconds, switch to the second tab and run the 2nd command (to start a new client) customized per your needs...
– don_crissti
Aug 29 '16 at 19:36
Tabs... I'll try. For now I can tell it doesn't work insidescreen
.
– cprn
Aug 30 '16 at 0:39
Are the tabs requirement? As in: does the client terminal process have to be a child of the server?
– cprn
Dec 16 '16 at 14:31
@CyprianGuerra - it was just an example, they're not required from what I can see...
– don_crissti
Dec 16 '16 at 17:49
|
show 2 more comments
I have been struggling with mc being in same alt-tab group as other terminal windows and found this solution.
https://chrisirwin.ca/posts/multiple-instances-of-gnome-terminal/
The guy (Chris Irwin) solves it for his mail routine. I did the same for mc with full success apart from mc icon within alt-tab but that is fine.
You'll need 3 files:
/usr/share/dbus-1/services/org.gnome.Terminal-mc.service
[D-BUS Service]
Name=org.gnome.Terminal-mc
SystemdService=gnome-terminal-server-mc.service
Exec=/usr/lib/gnome-terminal-server --class=org.gnome.Terminal-mc --app-id org.gnome.Terminal-mc
/usr/lib/systemd/user/gnome-terminal-server-mc.service
[Unit]
Description=GNOME mc Terminal Server
[Service]
KillMode=process
Type=dbus
BusName=org.gnome.Terminal-mc
ExecStart=/usr/lib/gnome-terminal-server --class=org.gnome.Terminal-mc --app-id org.gnome.Terminal-mc
/usr/local/share/applications/mc.desktop
This is your desktop entry for midnight commander. Either edit it directly in /usr/share/applications/...
or move it from there to /usr/local/share/applications/mc.desktop
to stress out that it is your own modified copy.
In any case, Exec
entry should be modified to have gnome-terminal --app-id org.gnome.Terminal-mc -e mc
Exec=gnome-terminal --app-id org.gnome.Terminal-mc --hide-menubar --geometry=102x35 -e mc
Archive with all the above
https://we.tl/t-6rH5jduMG7
This is .tar.gz to unpack in your /
. It will create files from above, plus .svg icon for mc.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f201900%2frun-true-multiple-process-instances-of-gnome-terminal%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
According to man gnome-terminal
, the option you're looking for appears to be the confusingly-named
--disable-factory
Do not register with the activation name server, do
not re-use an active terminal.
However, the option is apparently removed in more recent releases so should not be relied on.
This works great. By the time the pinheads remove this feature, I will likely no longer care. I need this in a test setup where more than ten terminal windows are open: some running minicom to various serial lines connecting to embedded devices, and others are sitting in test script directories, and such. gnome-terminal has the best features for resizing with good looking, readable fonts at every size. Unfortunately, it leaks memory like crazy, growing to 2GB in the course of a week. Separate processes will help contain this problem, making it more manageable.
– Kaz
May 7 '15 at 19:11
I tried rxvt, aterm, eterm, xterm, Terminator and a few others. They all easily run as separate processes, of course, but suck in other ways. The documented resizing hotkeys of rxvt wouldn't work. Aterm and xterm plain suck in that department. Terminator has weird resizing that changes the font size without the window size. ETerm just has completely wacky resizing with four fixed fonts; I played with the options for about 30 minutes, then uninstalled it.
– Kaz
May 7 '15 at 19:13
@Kaz xterm +xdotool --window "$WINDOWID"
?
– Gilles
May 7 '15 at 19:52
@Kaz You're probably way over it but I highly recommendurxvt
overrxvt
. And yes,gnome-terminal
is still graphically superior but I somehow learned not to miss it. It probably has a lot to do with new window manager (usingi3
now but it's not for everyone).
– cprn
Jan 8 '17 at 0:14
Look into any of the dozen other libvte based terminals? Gnome-terminal is just one application that ends up interfacing with that library on the backend unlike the rest mentioned above that use their own terminal implementations.
– dragon788
Aug 7 '18 at 18:19
add a comment |
According to man gnome-terminal
, the option you're looking for appears to be the confusingly-named
--disable-factory
Do not register with the activation name server, do
not re-use an active terminal.
However, the option is apparently removed in more recent releases so should not be relied on.
This works great. By the time the pinheads remove this feature, I will likely no longer care. I need this in a test setup where more than ten terminal windows are open: some running minicom to various serial lines connecting to embedded devices, and others are sitting in test script directories, and such. gnome-terminal has the best features for resizing with good looking, readable fonts at every size. Unfortunately, it leaks memory like crazy, growing to 2GB in the course of a week. Separate processes will help contain this problem, making it more manageable.
– Kaz
May 7 '15 at 19:11
I tried rxvt, aterm, eterm, xterm, Terminator and a few others. They all easily run as separate processes, of course, but suck in other ways. The documented resizing hotkeys of rxvt wouldn't work. Aterm and xterm plain suck in that department. Terminator has weird resizing that changes the font size without the window size. ETerm just has completely wacky resizing with four fixed fonts; I played with the options for about 30 minutes, then uninstalled it.
– Kaz
May 7 '15 at 19:13
@Kaz xterm +xdotool --window "$WINDOWID"
?
– Gilles
May 7 '15 at 19:52
@Kaz You're probably way over it but I highly recommendurxvt
overrxvt
. And yes,gnome-terminal
is still graphically superior but I somehow learned not to miss it. It probably has a lot to do with new window manager (usingi3
now but it's not for everyone).
– cprn
Jan 8 '17 at 0:14
Look into any of the dozen other libvte based terminals? Gnome-terminal is just one application that ends up interfacing with that library on the backend unlike the rest mentioned above that use their own terminal implementations.
– dragon788
Aug 7 '18 at 18:19
add a comment |
According to man gnome-terminal
, the option you're looking for appears to be the confusingly-named
--disable-factory
Do not register with the activation name server, do
not re-use an active terminal.
However, the option is apparently removed in more recent releases so should not be relied on.
According to man gnome-terminal
, the option you're looking for appears to be the confusingly-named
--disable-factory
Do not register with the activation name server, do
not re-use an active terminal.
However, the option is apparently removed in more recent releases so should not be relied on.
answered May 7 '15 at 1:20
steeldriversteeldriver
37.2k45287
37.2k45287
This works great. By the time the pinheads remove this feature, I will likely no longer care. I need this in a test setup where more than ten terminal windows are open: some running minicom to various serial lines connecting to embedded devices, and others are sitting in test script directories, and such. gnome-terminal has the best features for resizing with good looking, readable fonts at every size. Unfortunately, it leaks memory like crazy, growing to 2GB in the course of a week. Separate processes will help contain this problem, making it more manageable.
– Kaz
May 7 '15 at 19:11
I tried rxvt, aterm, eterm, xterm, Terminator and a few others. They all easily run as separate processes, of course, but suck in other ways. The documented resizing hotkeys of rxvt wouldn't work. Aterm and xterm plain suck in that department. Terminator has weird resizing that changes the font size without the window size. ETerm just has completely wacky resizing with four fixed fonts; I played with the options for about 30 minutes, then uninstalled it.
– Kaz
May 7 '15 at 19:13
@Kaz xterm +xdotool --window "$WINDOWID"
?
– Gilles
May 7 '15 at 19:52
@Kaz You're probably way over it but I highly recommendurxvt
overrxvt
. And yes,gnome-terminal
is still graphically superior but I somehow learned not to miss it. It probably has a lot to do with new window manager (usingi3
now but it's not for everyone).
– cprn
Jan 8 '17 at 0:14
Look into any of the dozen other libvte based terminals? Gnome-terminal is just one application that ends up interfacing with that library on the backend unlike the rest mentioned above that use their own terminal implementations.
– dragon788
Aug 7 '18 at 18:19
add a comment |
This works great. By the time the pinheads remove this feature, I will likely no longer care. I need this in a test setup where more than ten terminal windows are open: some running minicom to various serial lines connecting to embedded devices, and others are sitting in test script directories, and such. gnome-terminal has the best features for resizing with good looking, readable fonts at every size. Unfortunately, it leaks memory like crazy, growing to 2GB in the course of a week. Separate processes will help contain this problem, making it more manageable.
– Kaz
May 7 '15 at 19:11
I tried rxvt, aterm, eterm, xterm, Terminator and a few others. They all easily run as separate processes, of course, but suck in other ways. The documented resizing hotkeys of rxvt wouldn't work. Aterm and xterm plain suck in that department. Terminator has weird resizing that changes the font size without the window size. ETerm just has completely wacky resizing with four fixed fonts; I played with the options for about 30 minutes, then uninstalled it.
– Kaz
May 7 '15 at 19:13
@Kaz xterm +xdotool --window "$WINDOWID"
?
– Gilles
May 7 '15 at 19:52
@Kaz You're probably way over it but I highly recommendurxvt
overrxvt
. And yes,gnome-terminal
is still graphically superior but I somehow learned not to miss it. It probably has a lot to do with new window manager (usingi3
now but it's not for everyone).
– cprn
Jan 8 '17 at 0:14
Look into any of the dozen other libvte based terminals? Gnome-terminal is just one application that ends up interfacing with that library on the backend unlike the rest mentioned above that use their own terminal implementations.
– dragon788
Aug 7 '18 at 18:19
This works great. By the time the pinheads remove this feature, I will likely no longer care. I need this in a test setup where more than ten terminal windows are open: some running minicom to various serial lines connecting to embedded devices, and others are sitting in test script directories, and such. gnome-terminal has the best features for resizing with good looking, readable fonts at every size. Unfortunately, it leaks memory like crazy, growing to 2GB in the course of a week. Separate processes will help contain this problem, making it more manageable.
– Kaz
May 7 '15 at 19:11
This works great. By the time the pinheads remove this feature, I will likely no longer care. I need this in a test setup where more than ten terminal windows are open: some running minicom to various serial lines connecting to embedded devices, and others are sitting in test script directories, and such. gnome-terminal has the best features for resizing with good looking, readable fonts at every size. Unfortunately, it leaks memory like crazy, growing to 2GB in the course of a week. Separate processes will help contain this problem, making it more manageable.
– Kaz
May 7 '15 at 19:11
I tried rxvt, aterm, eterm, xterm, Terminator and a few others. They all easily run as separate processes, of course, but suck in other ways. The documented resizing hotkeys of rxvt wouldn't work. Aterm and xterm plain suck in that department. Terminator has weird resizing that changes the font size without the window size. ETerm just has completely wacky resizing with four fixed fonts; I played with the options for about 30 minutes, then uninstalled it.
– Kaz
May 7 '15 at 19:13
I tried rxvt, aterm, eterm, xterm, Terminator and a few others. They all easily run as separate processes, of course, but suck in other ways. The documented resizing hotkeys of rxvt wouldn't work. Aterm and xterm plain suck in that department. Terminator has weird resizing that changes the font size without the window size. ETerm just has completely wacky resizing with four fixed fonts; I played with the options for about 30 minutes, then uninstalled it.
– Kaz
May 7 '15 at 19:13
@Kaz xterm +
xdotool --window "$WINDOWID"
?– Gilles
May 7 '15 at 19:52
@Kaz xterm +
xdotool --window "$WINDOWID"
?– Gilles
May 7 '15 at 19:52
@Kaz You're probably way over it but I highly recommend
urxvt
over rxvt
. And yes, gnome-terminal
is still graphically superior but I somehow learned not to miss it. It probably has a lot to do with new window manager (using i3
now but it's not for everyone).– cprn
Jan 8 '17 at 0:14
@Kaz You're probably way over it but I highly recommend
urxvt
over rxvt
. And yes, gnome-terminal
is still graphically superior but I somehow learned not to miss it. It probably has a lot to do with new window manager (using i3
now but it's not for everyone).– cprn
Jan 8 '17 at 0:14
Look into any of the dozen other libvte based terminals? Gnome-terminal is just one application that ends up interfacing with that library on the backend unlike the rest mentioned above that use their own terminal implementations.
– dragon788
Aug 7 '18 at 18:19
Look into any of the dozen other libvte based terminals? Gnome-terminal is just one application that ends up interfacing with that library on the backend unlike the rest mentioned above that use their own terminal implementations.
– dragon788
Aug 7 '18 at 18:19
add a comment |
Due to the new client/server architecture (details here) you'll have to start separate instances of gnome-terminal-server
. To do that you could use the --app-id
switch:
/usr/lib/gnome-terminal/gnome-terminal-server --app-id my.first.Terminal
then use the client (with the same app-id) to create terminals1 inside the new server :
gnome-terminal --app-id my.first.Terminal
gnome-terminal --full-screen --app-id my.first.Terminal
......
Another instance:
/usr/lib/gnome-terminal/gnome-terminal-server --app-id my.second.Terminal
and terminals:
gnome-terminal --geometry 80x24+200+200 --app-id my.second.Terminal
gnome-terminal --app-id my.second.Terminal
.....
Path to gnome-terminal-server
might be different on your system.
1: Note that "you have 10 seconds to use the client to create a terminal inside the new server".
Can you give a working example or take a look at this question?: unix.stackexchange.com/questions/304269/…
– cprn
Aug 29 '16 at 16:57
@CyprianGuerra - in a gnome-terminal open two tabs: in the first tab run the 1st command in my example (that is to start the new server) then, in less than 10 seconds, switch to the second tab and run the 2nd command (to start a new client) customized per your needs...
– don_crissti
Aug 29 '16 at 19:36
Tabs... I'll try. For now I can tell it doesn't work insidescreen
.
– cprn
Aug 30 '16 at 0:39
Are the tabs requirement? As in: does the client terminal process have to be a child of the server?
– cprn
Dec 16 '16 at 14:31
@CyprianGuerra - it was just an example, they're not required from what I can see...
– don_crissti
Dec 16 '16 at 17:49
|
show 2 more comments
Due to the new client/server architecture (details here) you'll have to start separate instances of gnome-terminal-server
. To do that you could use the --app-id
switch:
/usr/lib/gnome-terminal/gnome-terminal-server --app-id my.first.Terminal
then use the client (with the same app-id) to create terminals1 inside the new server :
gnome-terminal --app-id my.first.Terminal
gnome-terminal --full-screen --app-id my.first.Terminal
......
Another instance:
/usr/lib/gnome-terminal/gnome-terminal-server --app-id my.second.Terminal
and terminals:
gnome-terminal --geometry 80x24+200+200 --app-id my.second.Terminal
gnome-terminal --app-id my.second.Terminal
.....
Path to gnome-terminal-server
might be different on your system.
1: Note that "you have 10 seconds to use the client to create a terminal inside the new server".
Can you give a working example or take a look at this question?: unix.stackexchange.com/questions/304269/…
– cprn
Aug 29 '16 at 16:57
@CyprianGuerra - in a gnome-terminal open two tabs: in the first tab run the 1st command in my example (that is to start the new server) then, in less than 10 seconds, switch to the second tab and run the 2nd command (to start a new client) customized per your needs...
– don_crissti
Aug 29 '16 at 19:36
Tabs... I'll try. For now I can tell it doesn't work insidescreen
.
– cprn
Aug 30 '16 at 0:39
Are the tabs requirement? As in: does the client terminal process have to be a child of the server?
– cprn
Dec 16 '16 at 14:31
@CyprianGuerra - it was just an example, they're not required from what I can see...
– don_crissti
Dec 16 '16 at 17:49
|
show 2 more comments
Due to the new client/server architecture (details here) you'll have to start separate instances of gnome-terminal-server
. To do that you could use the --app-id
switch:
/usr/lib/gnome-terminal/gnome-terminal-server --app-id my.first.Terminal
then use the client (with the same app-id) to create terminals1 inside the new server :
gnome-terminal --app-id my.first.Terminal
gnome-terminal --full-screen --app-id my.first.Terminal
......
Another instance:
/usr/lib/gnome-terminal/gnome-terminal-server --app-id my.second.Terminal
and terminals:
gnome-terminal --geometry 80x24+200+200 --app-id my.second.Terminal
gnome-terminal --app-id my.second.Terminal
.....
Path to gnome-terminal-server
might be different on your system.
1: Note that "you have 10 seconds to use the client to create a terminal inside the new server".
Due to the new client/server architecture (details here) you'll have to start separate instances of gnome-terminal-server
. To do that you could use the --app-id
switch:
/usr/lib/gnome-terminal/gnome-terminal-server --app-id my.first.Terminal
then use the client (with the same app-id) to create terminals1 inside the new server :
gnome-terminal --app-id my.first.Terminal
gnome-terminal --full-screen --app-id my.first.Terminal
......
Another instance:
/usr/lib/gnome-terminal/gnome-terminal-server --app-id my.second.Terminal
and terminals:
gnome-terminal --geometry 80x24+200+200 --app-id my.second.Terminal
gnome-terminal --app-id my.second.Terminal
.....
Path to gnome-terminal-server
might be different on your system.
1: Note that "you have 10 seconds to use the client to create a terminal inside the new server".
answered May 7 '15 at 2:35
don_crisstidon_crissti
51.6k15141168
51.6k15141168
Can you give a working example or take a look at this question?: unix.stackexchange.com/questions/304269/…
– cprn
Aug 29 '16 at 16:57
@CyprianGuerra - in a gnome-terminal open two tabs: in the first tab run the 1st command in my example (that is to start the new server) then, in less than 10 seconds, switch to the second tab and run the 2nd command (to start a new client) customized per your needs...
– don_crissti
Aug 29 '16 at 19:36
Tabs... I'll try. For now I can tell it doesn't work insidescreen
.
– cprn
Aug 30 '16 at 0:39
Are the tabs requirement? As in: does the client terminal process have to be a child of the server?
– cprn
Dec 16 '16 at 14:31
@CyprianGuerra - it was just an example, they're not required from what I can see...
– don_crissti
Dec 16 '16 at 17:49
|
show 2 more comments
Can you give a working example or take a look at this question?: unix.stackexchange.com/questions/304269/…
– cprn
Aug 29 '16 at 16:57
@CyprianGuerra - in a gnome-terminal open two tabs: in the first tab run the 1st command in my example (that is to start the new server) then, in less than 10 seconds, switch to the second tab and run the 2nd command (to start a new client) customized per your needs...
– don_crissti
Aug 29 '16 at 19:36
Tabs... I'll try. For now I can tell it doesn't work insidescreen
.
– cprn
Aug 30 '16 at 0:39
Are the tabs requirement? As in: does the client terminal process have to be a child of the server?
– cprn
Dec 16 '16 at 14:31
@CyprianGuerra - it was just an example, they're not required from what I can see...
– don_crissti
Dec 16 '16 at 17:49
Can you give a working example or take a look at this question?: unix.stackexchange.com/questions/304269/…
– cprn
Aug 29 '16 at 16:57
Can you give a working example or take a look at this question?: unix.stackexchange.com/questions/304269/…
– cprn
Aug 29 '16 at 16:57
@CyprianGuerra - in a gnome-terminal open two tabs: in the first tab run the 1st command in my example (that is to start the new server) then, in less than 10 seconds, switch to the second tab and run the 2nd command (to start a new client) customized per your needs...
– don_crissti
Aug 29 '16 at 19:36
@CyprianGuerra - in a gnome-terminal open two tabs: in the first tab run the 1st command in my example (that is to start the new server) then, in less than 10 seconds, switch to the second tab and run the 2nd command (to start a new client) customized per your needs...
– don_crissti
Aug 29 '16 at 19:36
Tabs... I'll try. For now I can tell it doesn't work inside
screen
.– cprn
Aug 30 '16 at 0:39
Tabs... I'll try. For now I can tell it doesn't work inside
screen
.– cprn
Aug 30 '16 at 0:39
Are the tabs requirement? As in: does the client terminal process have to be a child of the server?
– cprn
Dec 16 '16 at 14:31
Are the tabs requirement? As in: does the client terminal process have to be a child of the server?
– cprn
Dec 16 '16 at 14:31
@CyprianGuerra - it was just an example, they're not required from what I can see...
– don_crissti
Dec 16 '16 at 17:49
@CyprianGuerra - it was just an example, they're not required from what I can see...
– don_crissti
Dec 16 '16 at 17:49
|
show 2 more comments
I have been struggling with mc being in same alt-tab group as other terminal windows and found this solution.
https://chrisirwin.ca/posts/multiple-instances-of-gnome-terminal/
The guy (Chris Irwin) solves it for his mail routine. I did the same for mc with full success apart from mc icon within alt-tab but that is fine.
You'll need 3 files:
/usr/share/dbus-1/services/org.gnome.Terminal-mc.service
[D-BUS Service]
Name=org.gnome.Terminal-mc
SystemdService=gnome-terminal-server-mc.service
Exec=/usr/lib/gnome-terminal-server --class=org.gnome.Terminal-mc --app-id org.gnome.Terminal-mc
/usr/lib/systemd/user/gnome-terminal-server-mc.service
[Unit]
Description=GNOME mc Terminal Server
[Service]
KillMode=process
Type=dbus
BusName=org.gnome.Terminal-mc
ExecStart=/usr/lib/gnome-terminal-server --class=org.gnome.Terminal-mc --app-id org.gnome.Terminal-mc
/usr/local/share/applications/mc.desktop
This is your desktop entry for midnight commander. Either edit it directly in /usr/share/applications/...
or move it from there to /usr/local/share/applications/mc.desktop
to stress out that it is your own modified copy.
In any case, Exec
entry should be modified to have gnome-terminal --app-id org.gnome.Terminal-mc -e mc
Exec=gnome-terminal --app-id org.gnome.Terminal-mc --hide-menubar --geometry=102x35 -e mc
Archive with all the above
https://we.tl/t-6rH5jduMG7
This is .tar.gz to unpack in your /
. It will create files from above, plus .svg icon for mc.
add a comment |
I have been struggling with mc being in same alt-tab group as other terminal windows and found this solution.
https://chrisirwin.ca/posts/multiple-instances-of-gnome-terminal/
The guy (Chris Irwin) solves it for his mail routine. I did the same for mc with full success apart from mc icon within alt-tab but that is fine.
You'll need 3 files:
/usr/share/dbus-1/services/org.gnome.Terminal-mc.service
[D-BUS Service]
Name=org.gnome.Terminal-mc
SystemdService=gnome-terminal-server-mc.service
Exec=/usr/lib/gnome-terminal-server --class=org.gnome.Terminal-mc --app-id org.gnome.Terminal-mc
/usr/lib/systemd/user/gnome-terminal-server-mc.service
[Unit]
Description=GNOME mc Terminal Server
[Service]
KillMode=process
Type=dbus
BusName=org.gnome.Terminal-mc
ExecStart=/usr/lib/gnome-terminal-server --class=org.gnome.Terminal-mc --app-id org.gnome.Terminal-mc
/usr/local/share/applications/mc.desktop
This is your desktop entry for midnight commander. Either edit it directly in /usr/share/applications/...
or move it from there to /usr/local/share/applications/mc.desktop
to stress out that it is your own modified copy.
In any case, Exec
entry should be modified to have gnome-terminal --app-id org.gnome.Terminal-mc -e mc
Exec=gnome-terminal --app-id org.gnome.Terminal-mc --hide-menubar --geometry=102x35 -e mc
Archive with all the above
https://we.tl/t-6rH5jduMG7
This is .tar.gz to unpack in your /
. It will create files from above, plus .svg icon for mc.
add a comment |
I have been struggling with mc being in same alt-tab group as other terminal windows and found this solution.
https://chrisirwin.ca/posts/multiple-instances-of-gnome-terminal/
The guy (Chris Irwin) solves it for his mail routine. I did the same for mc with full success apart from mc icon within alt-tab but that is fine.
You'll need 3 files:
/usr/share/dbus-1/services/org.gnome.Terminal-mc.service
[D-BUS Service]
Name=org.gnome.Terminal-mc
SystemdService=gnome-terminal-server-mc.service
Exec=/usr/lib/gnome-terminal-server --class=org.gnome.Terminal-mc --app-id org.gnome.Terminal-mc
/usr/lib/systemd/user/gnome-terminal-server-mc.service
[Unit]
Description=GNOME mc Terminal Server
[Service]
KillMode=process
Type=dbus
BusName=org.gnome.Terminal-mc
ExecStart=/usr/lib/gnome-terminal-server --class=org.gnome.Terminal-mc --app-id org.gnome.Terminal-mc
/usr/local/share/applications/mc.desktop
This is your desktop entry for midnight commander. Either edit it directly in /usr/share/applications/...
or move it from there to /usr/local/share/applications/mc.desktop
to stress out that it is your own modified copy.
In any case, Exec
entry should be modified to have gnome-terminal --app-id org.gnome.Terminal-mc -e mc
Exec=gnome-terminal --app-id org.gnome.Terminal-mc --hide-menubar --geometry=102x35 -e mc
Archive with all the above
https://we.tl/t-6rH5jduMG7
This is .tar.gz to unpack in your /
. It will create files from above, plus .svg icon for mc.
I have been struggling with mc being in same alt-tab group as other terminal windows and found this solution.
https://chrisirwin.ca/posts/multiple-instances-of-gnome-terminal/
The guy (Chris Irwin) solves it for his mail routine. I did the same for mc with full success apart from mc icon within alt-tab but that is fine.
You'll need 3 files:
/usr/share/dbus-1/services/org.gnome.Terminal-mc.service
[D-BUS Service]
Name=org.gnome.Terminal-mc
SystemdService=gnome-terminal-server-mc.service
Exec=/usr/lib/gnome-terminal-server --class=org.gnome.Terminal-mc --app-id org.gnome.Terminal-mc
/usr/lib/systemd/user/gnome-terminal-server-mc.service
[Unit]
Description=GNOME mc Terminal Server
[Service]
KillMode=process
Type=dbus
BusName=org.gnome.Terminal-mc
ExecStart=/usr/lib/gnome-terminal-server --class=org.gnome.Terminal-mc --app-id org.gnome.Terminal-mc
/usr/local/share/applications/mc.desktop
This is your desktop entry for midnight commander. Either edit it directly in /usr/share/applications/...
or move it from there to /usr/local/share/applications/mc.desktop
to stress out that it is your own modified copy.
In any case, Exec
entry should be modified to have gnome-terminal --app-id org.gnome.Terminal-mc -e mc
Exec=gnome-terminal --app-id org.gnome.Terminal-mc --hide-menubar --geometry=102x35 -e mc
Archive with all the above
https://we.tl/t-6rH5jduMG7
This is .tar.gz to unpack in your /
. It will create files from above, plus .svg icon for mc.
answered Feb 23 at 11:21
LauriLauri
111
111
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f201900%2frun-true-multiple-process-instances-of-gnome-terminal%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
You may have success with
gnome-terminal --disable-factory
, however support for it is apparently being witdrawn– steeldriver
May 7 '15 at 1:01
@steeldriver It seems to be working; care to make it into an answer? I don't care about support being withdrawn. Why is this so hard to find? Because the documentation for
--disable-factory
doesn't use any standard terminology like "start in a new process (or address space); do not re-use the existing instance".– Kaz
May 7 '15 at 1:06
Compare unix.stackexchange.com/questions/323663
– JdeBP
Nov 17 '16 at 20:02
2
I can't believe the people running these projects keep making such crappy decisions. Did we learn nothing? Who cares about sparing some kilobytes of RAM? One would think that keeping the terminals from crashing each other should be the #1 priority. Back to
rxvt
I guess.– Tobia
Nov 21 '16 at 12:12
In fact, I can recommend
rxvt
to anybody wanting a true multi-process terminal. It has Truetype font support, re-wrapping of long lines, and most other features of modern terminals.– Tobia
Nov 22 '16 at 13:50