donn@milton.acs.washington.edu (Donn Cave) (12/21/89)
I just put up bash 1.04 on several BSD mini/mainframes here, and it looks good. There was one thing I felt I had to do, however - Richard Stallman, don't read this - I turned flow control back on. (Specifically, I commented out about 6 lines in readline.c, starting with /temp.t_stopc = -1;/.) It fixed some pretty serious problems with regular terminals, hooked up on various configurations of RS232 and Ethernet, which basically couldn't reliably handle the heavy line-editing load on something like autorepeating \C-p. It may also have fixed a problem I've had where, somewhere along the road, things get into a fix where small one-line bursts of output, e.g. from pwd, wouldn't get to the screen. Other than the loss of two editing control characters, does anyone see a down side to this? Donn Cave UCS Software, University of Washington donn@milton.u.washington.edu
donn@MILTON.U.WASHINGTON.EDU (Donn Cave) (01/07/90)
I just put up bash 1.04 on several BSD mini/mainframes here, and it looks good. There was one thing I felt I had to do, however - Richard Stallman, don't read this - I turned flow control back on. (Specifically, I commented out about 6 lines in readline.c, starting with /temp.t_stopc = -1;/.) It fixed some pretty serious problems with regular terminals, hooked up on various configurations of RS232 and Ethernet, which basically couldn't reliably handle the heavy line-editing load on something like autorepeating \C-p. Other than the loss of two editing control characters, does anyone see a down side to this? I still have a problem that crops up intermittenly on X11 xterm, where small outputs (e.g., from pwd or jobs) get stuck somewhere before they get to the screen. Donn Cave UCS Software, University of Washington donn@milton.u.washington.edu
news@bbn.COM (News system owner ID) (01/10/90)
Flow control should be a user setable option (for instance, with a shell variable "flowcontrol"). -- Paul Placeway