Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 15:26:13 -0600 (MDT) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Paul Traina <pst@shockwave.com> Cc: cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: xterm termcap definition Message-ID: <199610202126.PAA13401@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199610201726.KAA17317@precipice.shockwave.com> References: <9610201037.AA23601@wavehh.hanse.de> <199610201726.KAA17317@precipice.shockwave.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Regarding the alternate screen behaviour: > > I think the "alternate screen" feature should *not* be enabled bu > default, too many people are used to one-screen behaviour (i.e. the > last screen of output of more/less is still displayed when more > exits). Eric's and NetBSD's entries have alternate screen enabled and > should be changes before importing them to FreeBSD. I aplogize for > overlooking this. > > I disagree. The alternate screen behavior is the canonical behavior for > XTerms. It's been freebsd that's been different all this time, and I recall > just how much this torqed me off when I switched to freebsd. I *totally* disagree. The alternate screen behavior has never been standard in *any* xterm system I've used. To note: HP/UX, Ultrix, SunOS, Solaris, VMS (yeah, VMS), 386BSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OSF/1, and Digital Unix. Should I go on? None of them xterm entries used the alternate screen behavior by default. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199610202126.PAA13401>