Re: [possibly OT] change in behavior of terminal windows after upgrade to GNOME 2.2
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 08:52:06AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> Specifically, this regards "window blanking" in "full screen" curses
> apps (like man(1), less(1) & vi(1), but not more(1)).
>
> When I was running GNOME 1.4 from sarge, the "screen" would not blank
> when I exited these type of apps; i.e., the last remaining bit of the
> app would still be on the "screen". This was a good and helpful thing.
>
> This happens in gnome-terminal, xterm & rxvt.
>
> Now in current GNOME 2.2 out of sid, that which was on the "screen"
> *before* the "full-screen" app was run is put back on the "screen".
>
> Is there some option to "flip" to go back to the GNOME 1.4 way of doing
> things, or should I enter a bug?
AFAICT, this is a termcap/terminfo issue and has nothing to do with
GNOME. IIRC, it's a potato->woody change, but it may have happened
earlier than that.
I've complained about it here before, but have yet to obtain anything
resembling a universal fix. It can be fixed within xterm by using
the TiteInhibit resource, but, well, that's xterm-specific. Even
Eterm (which claims to support a superset of xterm options) does not
recognize TiteInhibit.
I am in full agreement with you that not resetting the screen when
exiting curses apps is "a good and helpful thing" and, beyond that, I
have found that the current screen-restoring behaviour doesn't even
work properly. (In certain cases, the cursor may be left partway up
the screen, in the middle of the restored text. It can also cause
some viewers, such as less, to behave erratically when used to display
less than a full screen of text.) Despite this, there does not
appear to be any plan to go back to acting the same way that the text
consoles on vt1-6 do.
--
The freedoms that we enjoy presently are the most important victories of the
White Hats over the past several millennia, and it is vitally important that
we don't give them up now, only because we are frightened.
- Eolake Stobblehouse (http://stobblehouse.com/text/battle.html)
Reply to: