Re: Term is AOUT
'Bruce Perens wrote:'
>
>From: Chris Fearnley <cjf@netaxs.com>
>> As long as a package maintainer comes along for both, I don't see why
>> both can't be supported. Although I have no intention of using either
>> package, I will note that my ISP forbids use of SLiRP but allows use
>> of Term. Something about how SLiRP uses absurd amounts of CPU on his
>> system. So there's another good reason to support Term.
>
>What bothers me is the need for term-ified versions of this and that.
>If it could be made to pipe into the networking system as if it were
>SLIP, it would be less of a problem.
Yes, term is ugly and I won't use it. But I don't see why some
package maintainer shouldn't maintain it if they wish.
--
Christopher J. Fearnley | UNIX SIG Leader at PACS
cjf@netaxs.com | (Philadelphia Area Computer Society)
http://www.netaxs.com/~cjf | Design Science Revolutionary
ftp://ftp.netaxs.com/people/cjf | Explorer in Universe
"Dare to be Naive" -- Bucky Fuller | Linux Advocate
Reply to: