Re: Re: Terminal - a good terminal?
[ I'm not subbed to -devel, this was pulled from the archive -- please Cc me
on replies ]
Thomas Dickey wrote:
> Jeff Teunissen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Primitive? heh. And as for the rest, I haven't had trouble -- it's
> > just an infocmp away. In any case, switching the emulation is trivial
> > -- it's not like terminal emulation is complicated.
> Judging by the variety of poor implementations, I'd say that's
> incorrect. Even "linux" emulation - how many implement its savable
Well, at least one does. :) A lot of our main emulation code was culled from
the kernel source, and abstracted some. So we got most of it for free, and
the rest is just doing a few things that aren't implemented by the kernel.
So yeah, "setterm -*ground foo -store" works.
| Jeff Teunissen -=- Pres., Dusk To Dawn Computing -=- deek @ d2dc.net
| GPG: 1024D/9840105A 7102 808A 7733 C2F3 097B 161B 9222 DAB8 9840 105A
| Core developer, The QuakeForge Project http://www.quakeforge.net/
| Specializing in Debian GNU/Linux http://www.d2dc.net/~deek/