David Arnold <davida(a)pobox.com> writes:
On 17 Dec 2023, at 13:02, KenUnix
<ken.unix.guy(a)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(a)anduin.eldar.org