Re: [9fans] success with 9vx from a terminal - Plan9

This is a discussion on Re: [9fans] success with 9vx from a terminal - Plan9 ; > * gdiaz@9grid.es [081022 11:16]: > > Hello, > > > > Rio is the responsible for killing a process using the Del key, AFAIK there is no way to terminate a program running in console. May be with some ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Re: [9fans] success with 9vx from a terminal

  1. Re: [9fans] success with 9vx from a terminal

    > * gdiaz@9grid.es [081022 11:16]:
    > > Hello,
    > >
    > > Rio is the responsible for killing a process using the Del key, AFAIK there is no way to terminate a program running in console. May be with some magic combination of the keys ctrl-t ctrl-t X.

    >
    > Why not write a simple 'shell' shell (heh) that cooks input and just runs rc? Then you would have the del key and others again.


    you mean like, uh, rio or acme? ☺

    - erik


  2. Re: [9fans] success with 9vx from a terminal

    >> * gdiaz@9grid.es [081022 11:16]:
    >> > Hello,
    >> >
    >> > Rio is the responsible for killing a process using the Del key, AFAIK there is no way to terminate a program running in console. May be with some magic combination of the keys ctrl-t ctrl-t X.

    >>
    >> Why not write a simple 'shell' shell (heh) that cooks input and just runs rc? Then you would have the del key and others again.

    >
    > you mean like, uh, rio or acme? ☺
    >
    > - erik


    This whole "Writing anything new is a terrible idea!" attitude is
    getting old. Why does acme exist? Thank god you weren't around the
    Unix Room when that got started, or you would have just said, "Isn't
    sam good enough for you?" If somebody feels the need for a functional
    text-mode interface, he should write it. I've felt a need for such a
    thing myself while fiddling with kernels that don't have video
    support. Believe it or not, there *is* room in Plan 9 for additions
    and improvements.



    John "Denial ain't just a river" Floren



  3. Re: [9fans] success with 9vx from a terminal

    > >> > Hello,
    > >> >
    > >> > Rio is the responsible for killing a process using the Del key, AFAIK there is no way to terminate a program running in console. May be with some magic combination of the keys ctrl-t ctrl-t X.
    > >>
    > >> Why not write a simple 'shell' shell (heh) that cooks input and just runs rc? Then you would have the del key and others again.

    > >
    > > you mean like, uh, rio or acme? ☺
    > >
    > > - erik

    >
    > This whole "Writing anything new is a terrible idea!" attitude is
    > getting old. Why does acme exist? Thank god you weren't around the
    > Unix Room when that got started, or you would have just said, "Isn't
    > sam good enough for you?" If somebody feels the need for a functional
    > text-mode interface, he should write it. I've felt a need for such a
    > thing myself while fiddling with kernels that don't have video
    > support. Believe it or not, there *is* room in Plan 9 for additions
    > and improvements.


    i thought "☺" was the international symbol for tongue-in-cheek.
    could you please let me know what the iso approved symbol is?

    by the way, in case you haven't noticed, i have contributed a number
    of new things. not all of them are worth incorporating. i would hope
    that standards for plan 9 remain high and we don't just shovel everything
    in.

    rio does provide most everything one would need for a "text-mode"
    interface. unfortunately, you can't currently "tail -f" /dev/text. perhaps
    such a change would be easier and more general than writing something
    completely seperate?

    - erik


  4. Re: [9fans] success with 9vx from a terminal

    On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 12:28 -0400, erik quanstrom wrote:
    > rio does provide most everything one would need for a "text-mode"
    > interface. unfortunately, you can't currently "tail -f" /dev/text. perhaps
    > such a change would be easier and more general


    That's a very good point! It hadn't occurred to me either, but now
    that you've mentioned it -- makes total sense. I have the same issue
    with browsers on UNIX -- why is Firefox not capable of rendering
    on non-X11 surfaces? Why do I have to use a separate thing called
    lynx?

    Thanks,
    Roman.



+ Reply to Thread