Subject: Re: window(1)
To: Chris Wareham <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Richard Rauch <email@example.com>
Date: 01/29/2003 13:09:50
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 05:22:35PM +0000, Chris Wareham wrote:
> Richard Rauch wrote:
> >We have a program called window that ships with the base system.
> I'd never seen it before, but your post piqued my interest. A quick
> read of the man page, followed by logging into my VaxStation to
> try it out, and now I'm a big fan!
> I could be wrong, but the Sparc and Vax ports don't seem to do wscons,
I think that you're right. The point was perhaps obscured. I
tend to be verbose, and was trying to cut down on that. As a result,
the content may have been slightly lost or abbreviated.
wscons and X are not available for everyone. But they may be
undercutting the "need" for window to be improved.
> > * GNU screen is in pkgsrc and does most/all of the things that
> > (GNU EMACS also provides a lot of comparable functionality
> > if you create split windows and run shell processes...)
> Similar functionality, but GNU screen and Emacs don't come with the
Yes. And they have the GPL (an issue for some). And EMACS is, well,
big. (I like EMACS. In X. For editing text. I don't live in it and
am not wild about it for a general environment, especially on a
EMACS was kind of a side point. But screen does have some real
advantages. I'd like to narrow the gap where screen is better
I think perhaps you didn't read my whole message, or my point wasn't
clear. Or maybe I'm not understanding you. I think that we agree
that window is nice, and I hope you won't feel that it is terrible
if window is modified to emulate a more standard terminal or
support reconnections as screen does. (^&
"I probably don't know what I'm talking about." --firstname.lastname@example.org