Mike doesn't seem to be paying attention to this somewhat dated thread but in case anyone else is noticing.... it seems the erase setting is different than previous xterms. I get erase = ^? looking at stty -a output.
I think this means that the backspace key in emacs -nw will not function as expected (without some elisp correction) but will call `help' instead.
Very disconcerting when coding at full speed.
One can set erase to ^H in .bash_profile or similar but then there is the need to keep up with that setting when changing users or etc.
I'm guessing the old defualt was `erase = ^H' but not really sure. I don't see any settings in my rc files so apparently it didn't need any setting before.
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Harry Putnam wrote:
Mike doesn't seem to be paying attention to this somewhat dated thread but in case anyone else is noticing.... it seems the erase setting is different than previous xterms. I get erase = ^? looking at stty -a output.
I think this means that the backspace key in emacs -nw will not function as expected (without some elisp correction) but will call `help' instead.
Very disconcerting when coding at full speed.
One can set erase to ^H in .bash_profile or similar but then there is the need to keep up with that setting when changing users or etc.
I'm guessing the old defualt was `erase = ^H' but not really sure. I don't see any settings in my rc files so apparently it didn't need any setting before.
Actually this affects other tools as well (not just emacs). For eg: in 'less filename' with '/' for search - I can't use the backspace key.
/fdsafa^H^H^H^H
However doing 'stty -a' gives the same values on both the old and new xterms. (so the old setting is still erase = ^?)
Satish
Satish Balay balay@fastmail.fm writes:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Harry Putnam wrote:
Mike doesn't seem to be paying attention to this somewhat dated thread but in case anyone else is noticing.... it seems the erase setting is different than previous xterms. I get erase = ^? looking at stty -a output.
I think this means that the backspace key in emacs -nw will not function as expected (without some elisp correction) but will call `help' instead.
Very disconcerting when coding at full speed.
One can set erase to ^H in .bash_profile or similar but then there is the need to keep up with that setting when changing users or etc.
I'm guessing the old defualt was `erase = ^H' but not really sure. I don't see any settings in my rc files so apparently it didn't need any setting before.
Actually this affects other tools as well (not just emacs). For eg: in 'less filename' with '/' for search - I can't use the backspace key.
/fdsafa^H^H^H^H
However doing 'stty -a' gives the same values on both the old and new xterms. (so the old setting is still erase = ^?)
Maybe my `old' was older than your `old' hehe.
I was using 179 before updateing to.
I haven't had to piddle around with the erase setting for a very long time, but now with new xterm I get the behavior described, in emacs -nw.
I see what you mean about `less'. That has changed too. So this must be another setting... maybe the `-/+ ie' (initiate erase)
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Harry Putnam wrote:
Satish Balay balay@fastmail.fm writes:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Harry Putnam wrote:
Mike doesn't seem to be paying attention to this somewhat dated thread but in case anyone else is noticing.... it seems the erase setting is different than previous xterms. I get erase = ^? looking at stty -a output.
I think this means that the backspace key in emacs -nw will not function as expected (without some elisp correction) but will call `help' instead.
Very disconcerting when coding at full speed.
One can set erase to ^H in .bash_profile or similar but then there is the need to keep up with that setting when changing users or etc.
I'm guessing the old defualt was `erase = ^H' but not really sure. I don't see any settings in my rc files so apparently it didn't need any setting before.
Actually this affects other tools as well (not just emacs). For eg: in 'less filename' with '/' for search - I can't use the backspace key.
/fdsafa^H^H^H^H
However doing 'stty -a' gives the same values on both the old and new xterms. (so the old setting is still erase = ^?)
Maybe my `old' was older than your `old' hehe.
I was using 179 before updateing to.
Just to be sure - I noted the version of the old xterm - 179-5 (FC1)
I haven't had to piddle around with the erase setting for a very long time, but now with new xterm I get the behavior described, in emacs -nw.
I see what you mean about `less'. That has changed too. So this must be another setting... maybe the `-/+ ie' (initiate erase)
I did a diff of all the settings (from 'stty -a > log' ) and they were the same (except for the screen size of the 2 xterms)
Satish
Satish Balay balay@fastmail.fm writes:
Just to be sure - I noted the version of the old xterm - 179-5 (FC1)
I haven't had to piddle around with the erase setting for a very long time, but now with new xterm I get the behavior described, in emacs -nw.
I see what you mean about `less'. That has changed too. So this must be another setting... maybe the `-/+ ie' (initiate erase)
I did a diff of all the settings (from 'stty -a > log' ) and they were the same (except for the screen size of the 2 xterms)
Ok, so much for that theory... what do you suppose explains the fact that the backspc key now acts differently?
I'v very certain I wasn't getting the respective behavior in emacs or less prior to this change.
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Harry Putnam wrote:
Satish Balay balay@fastmail.fm writes:
Just to be sure - I noted the version of the old xterm - 179-5 (FC1)
I haven't had to piddle around with the erase setting for a very long time, but now with new xterm I get the behavior described, in emacs -nw.
I see what you mean about `less'. That has changed too. So this must be another setting... maybe the `-/+ ie' (initiate erase)
I did a diff of all the settings (from 'stty -a > log' ) and they were the same (except for the screen size of the 2 xterms)
Ok, so much for that theory... what do you suppose explains the fact that the backspc key now acts differently?
don't know
I'v very certain I wasn't getting the respective behavior in emacs or less prior to this change.
If you mean the 'backspace' key worked with the old version - then yes - I can reproduce this.
I have some xterms which I didn't kill after installing the new version - so I'm able to comapre (old and new behavior). I also have an FC2 box - with 179-6.EL - where I can reproduce the old behavior.
Satish
On Wed, 2004-06-30 at 13:46 -0500, Satish Balay wrote:
I see what you mean about `less'. That has changed too. So this must be another setting... maybe the `-/+ ie' (initiate erase)
I did a diff of all the settings (from 'stty -a > log' ) and they were the same (except for the screen size of the 2 xterms)
OOPS - please disregard last message - hit Send by mistake.
On Wed, 2004-06-30 at 14:02 -0500, Satish Balay wrote: ...
If you mean the 'backspace' key worked with the old version - then yes
- I can reproduce this.
I have some xterms which I didn't kill after installing the new version - so I'm able to comapre (old and new behavior). I also have an FC2 box - with 179-6.EL - where I can reproduce the old behavior.
There's definitely something going on here besides stty. Did the comparison of stty -a for KDE konsole and xterm 191 and they are the same except for the size and ixon (XON/XOFF) settings. Both have "erase = ^?" yet the xterm has the problems described earlier for emacs -nw and less while both work as expected in konsole. Can also reproduce the old/desirable behavior with xterm-179-6.EL on another box.
Phil
Satish Balay balay@fastmail.fm writes:
I'v very certain I wasn't getting the respective behavior in emacs or less prior to this change.
If you mean the 'backspace' key worked with the old version - then yes
- I can reproduce this.
I have some xterms which I didn't kill after installing the new version - so I'm able to comapre (old and new behavior). I also have an FC2 box - with 179-6.EL - where I can reproduce the old behavior.
Maybe Mike will wake up and tell us what he changed ... : )
Anyone else notice the `visual bell' flash is much more pronounced?
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Harry Putnam wrote:
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 12:58:56 -0500 From: Harry Putnam reader@newsguy.com To: fedora-test-list@redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Reply-To: For testers of Fedora Core development releases fedora-test-list@redhat.com X-BeenThere: fedora-test-list@redhat.com Subject: new xterm and erase setting
Mike doesn't seem to be paying attention to this somewhat dated thread but in case anyone else is noticing.... it seems the erase setting is different than previous xterms. I get erase = ^? looking at stty -a output.
I'm paying attention. I'm keeping track of everyone's feedback to get a grasp of what all changes I need to make, so I can make them all in one shot.
I think this means that the backspace key in emacs -nw will not function as expected (without some elisp correction) but will call `help' instead.
Very disconcerting when coding at full speed.
One can set erase to ^H in .bash_profile or similar but then there is the need to keep up with that setting when changing users or etc.
I'm guessing the old defualt was `erase = ^H' but not really sure. I don't see any settings in my rc files so apparently it didn't need any setting before.
Keep posting problems you discover, and rest assured that I'm watching. ;o) I'll update xterm sometime in the next 2 weeks or so with various changes to restore things that seem to be the most important to people. I'll post an email here at that time to indicate what changes I've made also, and to get everyone to test the new build and report back.
Thanks again to everyone for testing and discussing things on the list. Much appreciated.
TTYL
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Harry Putnam wrote:
I'v very certain I wasn't getting the respective behavior in emacs or less prior to this change.
If you mean the 'backspace' key worked with the old version - then yes
- I can reproduce this.
I have some xterms which I didn't kill after installing the new version - so I'm able to comapre (old and new behavior). I also have an FC2 box - with 179-6.EL - where I can reproduce the old behavior.
Maybe Mike will wake up and tell us what he changed ... : )
No problem. ;o)
Red Hat previously applied a custom patch to the xterm resources file that ships with xterm. Every change that Red Hat has ever made to the xterm resources does two things:
1) It fixes some problem or improves xterm in some way for certain users.
2) It changes xterm from the upstream default, and causes behaviour differences for people who expect the xterm default behaviour. Some of the changes make life very easy for the average PC using xterm user, but make things more difficult for the average old school UNIX user, using a highly heterogenous UNIX environment, with Red Hat OS's connecting to non-Linux OS's, using software such as Hummingbird Exceed, etc.
In general, almost every possible "bug fix" for xterm, fixes one users problem and creates a problem for another user. In other words, it is generally impossible to make xterm work by default for everyone out there in every situation. Different users simply require different application defaults, and there is an extremely large number of users out there with very different expectations for how things should work out of the box.
That means it is basically impossible to make everyone happy, yet we still need to have a "default". Our defaults are generally chosen so that things work best for the largest group of users out there, however that is still a complicated problem to choose defaults for.
The closer we stick to upstream xterm resources, the better, as any problems encountered by people are generic xterm issues. However, there are certain things that xterm defaults to, which are extremely inconvenient for the userbase using our operating system. One example of this, is that the average person using an IBM PC or similar computer, or using some other architecture with a PC keyboard, is used to the "backspace" key deleting the character to the left of the cursor, and the "DEL" key deleting the character under the cursor. That is traditional PC keyboard behaviour, and what the overwhelming majority of all computer users expect to happen. It is for this reason, that this is our intentional desired default handling of both of these keys.
Old school UNIX people however, may very well be used to UNIX terminals or other keyboards which the meaning of these keys is somewhat different.
It's essentially impossible to have a single default work for both groups of people, and it is a heavily debated topic out there. The important thing is to _have_ a default, and generally speaking, default configurations for computer software should really reflect what the largest group of users of the software expect to be the common behaviour. Since the xterm defaults do not reflect the behaviour of what the majority of users expect, we have to customize the default xterm configuration to make things work like most users expect. The side effect of this, is that users prefering traditional UNIX behaviour, or using software such as Exceed, may need to customize their xterm resources manually to get a configuration that works within their environment.
Over time, we've gained a number of such divergences from the upstream xterm resources. The xterm 191-1 package no longer has any Red Hat customizations - it is stock xterm with no resource modifications. So anything that is now "broken" in the eyes of a user, is "broken" so to speak in the default upstream xterm - where "broken" is of course entirely within the eyes of the beholder, and will vary from person to person.
The purpose of the exercise, was to see just what default xterm resources people consider "broken", and to re-enable the Red Hat customizations for those issues where deemed necessary. If any of our customizations aren't missed, we can possibly drop them, and the closer we are to upstream xterm, the less maintenance overhead there is, as well as the less problems the upstream maintainer of xterm will see from Red Hat OS users (theoretically).
So far the experiment has went well, and I've got a list of things that I plan on re-enabling soon.
Thanks again to everyone who has tested xterm and posted back to the list their experience and feedback!
"Mike A. Harris" mharris@www.linux.org.uk writes:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Harry Putnam wrote:
I'v very certain I wasn't getting the respective behavior in emacs or less prior to this change.
If you mean the 'backspace' key worked with the old version - then yes
- I can reproduce this.
I have some xterms which I didn't kill after installing the new version - so I'm able to comapre (old and new behavior). I also have an FC2 box - with 179-6.EL - where I can reproduce the old behavior.
Maybe Mike will wake up and tell us what he changed ... : )
No problem. ;o)
OK so what specifically was changed that causes the `new' behavior of of backspc NOT deleting to the left in emacs -nw. Ditto for the change that causes to appear when using backspace in `less' search fields?
On Sun, 4 Jul 2004, Harry Putnam wrote:
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2004 19:10:46 -0500 From: Harry Putnam reader@newsguy.com To: fedora-test-list@redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Reply-To: For testers of Fedora Core development releases fedora-test-list@redhat.com X-BeenThere: fedora-test-list@redhat.com Subject: Re: new xterm and erase setting
"Mike A. Harris" mharris@www.linux.org.uk writes:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Harry Putnam wrote:
I'v very certain I wasn't getting the respective behavior in emacs or less prior to this change.
If you mean the 'backspace' key worked with the old version - then yes
- I can reproduce this.
I have some xterms which I didn't kill after installing the new version - so I'm able to comapre (old and new behavior). I also have an FC2 box - with 179-6.EL - where I can reproduce the old behavior.
Maybe Mike will wake up and tell us what he changed ... : )
No problem. ;o)
OK so what specifically was changed that causes the `new' behavior of of backspc NOT deleting to the left in emacs -nw. Ditto for the change that causes to appear when using backspace in `less' search fields?
Along with all other Red Hat customizations, the one that fixes this problem was removed. I don't know off hand without examining the patch we applied, which of the customizations fixed this, but it wouldn't be hard to find out.
Thomas will be putting xterm-192 out soon, and I'll probably update to it right away, again without our patch applied, just to see which upstream changes he's made will work for people instead of our customizing things. Once that's in the tree and I get a bit of feedback, I'll probably re-integrate our patch and remove any changes that aren't needed.
The backspace/delete problem will likely go away then also. I'll post a note here for testing/feedback then also.
Thanks again to everyone for fiddling with the new xterm and discussing it here.
TTYL
-
Harry Putnam -
Mike A. Harris -
Phil Schaffner -
Satish Balay