[u-u] Terminal Emulation

[Claude Morin]

No worries, it wasn't flamish.  Hopefully my previous posts and this current
post weren't/aren't either.

Overall I think you were using a severely broken copy of PuTTY, or had some
other severe problem with your system.  See detailed comments below.

On 13 May 2011 16:38, Eric Siegerman <pub08-uu at davor.org> wrote:
>
> My first issue with Putty is that it runs in a DOS window,
> instead of providing its own


Sorry, this is simply incorrect.  PuTTY runs in its own non-DOS window.  But
see below for Cygwin.

...and DOS windows are broken.
>

I agree absolutely.


> Blockwise cut/paste rather than linewise, for one thing


The default as shipped is linewise, although it can be configured to be
blockwise.  A useful feature is that holding down <ALT> toggles from the
configured mode to the other one.

; for
> another, it sometimes gets into a weird state where new output is
> overlaying old -- IIRC, when the window scrolls, the new bottom
> line is populated with old text from the history buffer, rather
> than being empty as it should be.


This sounds like the broken MS HyperTerminal's behaviour.  As I mentioned in
another post I've also seen this when the shell's TERM environment variable
is set incorrectly, regardless of which terminal emulator you're using.

... putting
> the blame on M$ where it belongs, emotionally satisfying as that
> may be, doesn't make it any easier to get work done.
>

:-) Well said.  I too tend to use the best technical solution for me.

Cygwin also suffers from this; it replaces cmd.exe but not the
> underlying text-window implementation.  I put up with that to get

Cygwin's other benefits, and because there isn't an alternative I

like any better.


Correct, as delivered Cygwin runs a bash shell inside an MS console window,
but there's no need to put up with that because it's easily changed.  The
first thing I do after installing Cygwin is replace their batch file wrapper
with one that calls the non-X rxvt.  Ah, I see below that rxvt isn't for
you.


>   But since, for straight terminal emulation,
> there *is* an alternative that I much prefer, I've reluctantly
> decided to use it despite my political objections.
>

For me it's not just about politics.  I'm also a Cheap Bastard (TM), and a
Demanding Bastard (TM).  Given that Open Source tools get used by and
developed by other Demanding Bastards, they're typically a much better fit
for my needs.


> Secondly, Putty follows X-Windows's copy-on-select convention,
> rather than the Mac/MS-Windows convention in which Select and
> Copy are distinct operations.  SecureCRT can be configured either
> way.  For those who like copy-on-select, fine, but personally I
> hate hate HATE it; it messes me up almost every time I use it.
>

Good point.  I touch type so using the mouse or a menu item to copy and
paste is absolutely unacceptable.  For example Gnome Terminal makes me
insane.  I'm also mostly a command line guy, so having to hit <CTRL><C> to
copy would seriously mess me up.  With PuTTY I just use xterm operations:
drag-to-select (yeah, I have to take my hand off the keyboard :-), and
<SHIFT><INS> to paste.  I took a quick look at the PuTTY configuration and I
don't see a way to get what you want.

...But Putty, or rather the combination of it and
> the DOS window it runs in, gets in my way.
>

Just to be sure all of our loyal readers get this: PuTTY does not use a DOS
window.  *Honest.*  It implements its own terminal emulator.  Download the
source if you don't believe me.

> What functionality justifies using a closed-source solution?
> ...
>
So thanks for asking; you've helped me to clarify my
> own position :-)
>

No problem, that's why I'm here :-).


> That said, it turns out that there's a gnome-terminal port to
> Cygwin


NOOOOOOOOooooooooooo!

-klode
P.S. NOOOOOOOOooooooooo!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://unixunanimous.org/pipermail/u-u/attachments/20110513/976a4fdb/attachment-0001.html>