Re: [9fans] History

[George Michaelson <ggm@dstc.edu.au>]

"Douglas A. Gwyn" <gwyn@arl.army.mil> writes:

>forsyth@vitanuova.com wrote:
>> if you are intent for whatever reason on capturing, recovering, and
>> especially modifying typed input on the fly (as with command
>> completion but other things as well), i'd plug something (cf. pipefile)
>> between typist and the recipient of the typing.

>Indeed, one measure of how good an operating system really is
>is how transparent and efficient a program like BSD "script" is.

I use screen locally, because somebody else installs and supports it.

I have to say, it gets in the way terribly. Maybe its not possible to
intrude multiple virtual terminals on one binding without confusing
either the operating system, the user or both. But persistance and
the ability to cut-paste on a non-mouse system and migrate the UI to
different remote bindings are useful enough I can wear the bogons.

Is screen something one would say deserves to be a generic plugable or
is it too many functions collapsed into one layer and should be discrete
pluggables, each for a specific task?

	input-snarfer | virtual-terminal-switcher | persistance | rc ?

-George