Re: Problems with Growl notification

[Aaron Davies]

On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Tony Cebzanov <address@hidden> 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
address@hidden