jdm@gssc.UUCP (John David Miller) (02/01/90)
In article <6124@ncar.ucar.edu> davis@groucho.UCAR.EDU (Glenn P. Davis) writes: >In article <18600004@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> cs325bb@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >> >>Does anybody out there know the terminal type for the NeXT? >> >The NeXT terminal application claims to be a vt100 but isn't. > >If this was my product, I'd be quite embarrassed that this >situation was released. Furthermore, why doesn't the Shell application have cursor addressing? It seems silly to me to make the "real" application (with scrollbars, multiple instances, etc) brain-dead in the most basic of functions (terminal emulation) while the Terminal application (which has pseudo-vt100 emulation so you can run vi, emacs, more) is a brain-dead application (no scrollbars, no multiple instances, no cut and paste). **** Why was there a need for two different programs?! **** Even the X Window System has a better terminal emulator, and it combines most of the functions of Terminal and Shell into one. My suggestion: fold vt100 emulation into Shell, at least as an option when using mono-spaced fonts. -- jdm -- John David Miller jdm@gss.com Graphic Software Systems uunet!gssc!jdm 9590 S.W. Gemini Dr. (503) 641-2200 (voice) Beaverton, OR 97005-7161 (503) 643-8642 (FAX)