Subject: Re: PCVT/virtual consoles
To: David Brownlee <D.K.Brownlee@city.ac.uk>
From: Chris G Demetriou <Chris_G_Demetriou@LAGAVULIN.PDL.CS.CMU.EDU>
Date: 05/08/1995 09:31:52
> Either pcvt provides something better than screen, in which case
> it should be on all ports, or it doesn't in which case it shouldn't
> even be in the i386 port, & screen should be provided as a binary
> package for all ports (or even included in the base distribution,
> but I don't want to start that discussion again :).
I don't think the "all" or "none" decision is a binary function.
In particular, if a driver can exploit certain hardware features on a
given architecture, that otherwise wouldn't be exploited and that
don't exist on other architectures... well, that's why drivers exist.
For instance, it should be easy and very fast to provide a text-only
virtual terminal emulation on PC's, because of the fact that they've
got a text mode built into their video cards... That'd be a lot
harder on something like a sparc, which doesn't have built-in text
I'm not sure that i have a comment one way or another, except that we
shouldn't be providing _two_ "standard" console drivers on the i386...