From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Micah Stetson To: Jim Choate <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] ssh server? Message-ID: <20040209170808.GA7253@epaphras.cnm-vra.com> References: <20040207210911.GA11947@epaphras.cnm-vra.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 09:08:08 -0800 Topicbox-Message-UUID: d50bbf62-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 > > Sometimes. It depends on what you're doing and what your > > expectations are. > > Duh, no kidding? At no point did I say it was the solution to all > problems. I didn't mean to imply that you said anything like that. This is what you said: > It [vt] will make your life much easier than trying to do it from a > standard rc prompt. I interpreted this to mean that in most cases, when working with other systems (i.e. Unix), vt provides a better interface than a simple rio window (which you term a standard rc prompt). If this is not what you meant, feel free to enlighten me. My "Sometimes..." statement could probably have been better worded like this: "In certain cases, Jim may be right about this. But in my situation and, I think, more generally, rio is quite often more comfortable than vt, even for interacting with other systems." My hope was that whomever you were advising to look into vt would also try just using rio and decide what was better in his/her situation. I should probably have stated this more clearly or not entered the conversation at all. > You misrepresent my statement. If I did so, it was unintentional, and I apologize. I also apologize to the list for the unnecessary noise. I will try to hold my tongue in the future. Micah