Vermont Views

[Chad Price]

In <274AD9FB.218D at tct.uucp> chip at tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes:

>[ Followups to comp.unix.sysv386 ]

>According to jgd at rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond):
>>It do not work through curses and instead they invented a "better idea".

>This complaint is valid.  Why invent /etc/vvtermcap when /etc/termcap
>is 90% of what you need?  Although that last 10% includes most of the
>neat display features, like color escape codes.

>>You are pretty much stuck with vt100/ansi terminals and the AT386
>>terminal as implemented in ISC Unix 2.2 does NOT work.

>These complaints are unfounded.  We use VV under SCO Unix, and I've
>used it under SCO Xenix, and the console is in fact the place where it
>works best.  And if the behavior isn't right for a given terminal,
>just edit /etc/vvtermcap; no biggy.

We use VV on an AT&T 386 running Sys V, 3.2 and display to both the console
(in color, but with limitations - one of us has altered their shrouded source
in order to allow more color combinations to work), and to AT&T 605 terminals
(monochrome.) We are working on vvtermcaps for AT&T 320 graphics terminals
(slowly - not a top priority).

While creation of yet another termcap is a nusance (!!), since the regular
termcap does not support many of the nicer features, it seems the only
reasonable option. 

I'd be interested in hearing from others using VV to learn from their
findings about VV bugs and VV shortcuts, etc.

Chad
price at fergvax.unl.edu