On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 08:42:47PM +0200, Zbigniew Baniewski wrote:
> 
> I'm wondering, if the "linux" terminal is properly defined - for the
> comparison purposes I ran the same apps I'm using under Debian - I think,
> the terminal type is known to that apps, so the behaviour should be the
> same. But it isn't.

I'm going to leave your other complaints, which generally seem to me to
be pretty wrongheaded, alone.  But this one is worth some discussion.

I'm not sure why you think "linux" is the correct terminal type for the
NetBSD wscons console.  It is not.  About all they have in common is
that they are both vaguely similar to the ANSI terminal standard, which
is a rather small subset of the DEC VT100 terminal capabilities (what
PC users tend to call "ANSI" is *not* what our termcap calls "ansi";
the PC BIOS flavor of "ANSI" has a large number of nonstandard extensions).

Our wscons console driver can emulate a DEC vt220 (with the color
extensions from the vt240, I believe) or a Sun workstation console.  If
you set it up for a different number of rows or columns you'll need to
tell the termcap/curses libraries about that using stty rows and stty
columns and/or the ROWS and COLUMNS environment variables.

There are several *different* standard mappings for the function,
numeric keypad, and application keypad keys on these terminals.  You
can select which one is the default for wscons virtual consoles with
kernel configuration options, which are well documented.  If you
expect a particular mapping without doing anything to select it, you
will probably find this irritating -- but it is exactly what a real
vt220 would do, as well.

But I cannot imagine why you expect that the "linux" terminal type
would work, ever, at all.  Where did we ever claim that it would?