[TUHS] Re: Compatibility question

[Brad Spencer <brad@anduin.eldar.org>]

David Arnold <davida@pobox.com> writes:

> 
>> On 17 Dec 2023, at 13:02, KenUnix <ken.unix.guy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> -8<—
>
>> I have tried vt100, vt100-am, vt100-nam and none
>> work as expected.
>
> I have a long-ago recollection that using vt100 had rendering issues with emacs, but vt102 was fine.  Maybe worth a shot?
>
>
>
> d



Unless you are actually using a real VT100 physical serial terminal
there is very much a non-zero chance that the terminal emulator that you
are using is not really vt100, vt102, or any such thing, but some
subset, superset or variant that isn't quite like a real physical VT100,
close but not exact.  You may try 'ansi' or 'xterm', if either of those
are available in the Unix you are using.  If not, try a different
terminal emulator.

Example..  a long time ago in a university far away, there was Data
General systems mostly and lots of DG211 terminals.  The DG211 have a
ansi mode that is very close to vt100, but not quite.  Along comes
various Unix systems, in particular, a RS6000.  Wanting to play Moria
(successor to rogue), I found that the ansi mode didn't quite cut it and
ended up hacking up a TERMCAP / TERMINFO entry to deal with the issue as
best as it was possible.  I could never come up with a native DG211
entry that worked any better than my hacks. If I recall, the terminal
*MAY* have supported VT52 as well (or that might have been the MV10000
that did some sort of DG211 to VT52 translation) I know I ended up
writing a VT52 terminal emulator (for some reason or other... it was a
long time ago) and I know I used it on the Unix systems that started to
appear around the university as time went on.  VT52 was pretty simple
and it tended to work pretty well.









-- 
Brad Spencer - brad@anduin.eldar.org