xterm - how to disable eight-bit rewriting - Xwindows

This is a discussion on xterm - how to disable eight-bit rewriting - Xwindows ; How can I turn off eight bit mode in xterm? After much searching and false accusations, I discovered that xterm rewrites the sequence ]v (as well as other sequences). By default, on SuSE linux (which I will shortly be abandoning), ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: xterm - how to disable eight-bit rewriting

  1. xterm - how to disable eight-bit rewriting

    How can I turn off eight bit mode in xterm?


    After much searching and false accusations, I discovered that xterm
    rewrites the sequence ]v (as well as other sequences). By default,
    on SuSE linux (which I will shortly be abandoning), xterm translates
    ]v to o-umlaut (an o with two dots on it). By setting

    XTerm*eightBitInput:false

    in .Xdefaults, I have achieved that it "only" rewrites ]v to ](escape)v
    (this, by the way, is also what rxvt does).

    By modifying the xterm function HandleEightBitKeyPressed(), I have
    gotten to the point where no re-writing happens. But that's tacky.

    The resources:


    ! the following three do not seem to turn off eightbit mode
    ! (which causes ]v to be converted to ]ESCv when typed rapidly)
    XTerm*metaSendsEscape:false
    XTerm*eightBitOutput:false
    XTerm*eightBitControl:false

    (and reloading the rdb and starting a new xterm)
    do not succeed in configuring this (in searching for a less tacky solution).


    What is the best list to moan and complain about xterm?

  2. Re: xterm - how to disable eight-bit rewriting

    Thomas Mellman wrote:
    > After much searching and false accusations, I discovered that xterm
    > rewrites the sequence ]v (as well as other sequences). By default,
    > on SuSE linux (which I will shortly be abandoning), xterm translates
    > ]v to o-umlaut (an o with two dots on it). By setting


    > XTerm*eightBitInput:false


    > in .Xdefaults, I have achieved that it "only" rewrites ]v to ](escape)v
    > (this, by the way, is also what rxvt does).


    It sounds as if you might be using a compose sequence - it might be
    helpful to provide some information about the locale and keyboard type,
    so others can experiment with this and see what you're seeing.

    > By modifying the xterm function HandleEightBitKeyPressed(), I have
    > gotten to the point where no re-writing happens. But that's tacky.


    It's vague as well - you could be talking about one of the *LookupString
    functions. Or it could be in the ensuing logic...

    > What is the best list to moan and complain about xterm?


    I generally use google to find these comments
    (though recently it's become unreliable ;-)

    --
    Thomas E. Dickey
    http://invisible-island.net
    ftp://invisible-island.net

  3. Re: xterm - how to disable eight-bit rewriting

    Thomas Dickey wrote:
    > Thomas Mellman wrote:
    >
    >>After much searching and false accusations, I discovered that xterm
    >>rewrites the sequence ]v (as well as other sequences). By default,
    >>on SuSE linux (which I will shortly be abandoning), xterm translates
    >>]v to o-umlaut (an o with two dots on it). By setting

    >
    >
    >> XTerm*eightBitInput:false

    >
    >
    >>in .Xdefaults, I have achieved that it "only" rewrites ]v to ](escape)v
    >>(this, by the way, is also what rxvt does).

    >
    >
    > It sounds as if you might be using a compose sequence - it might be
    > helpful to provide some information about the locale and keyboard type,
    > so others can experiment with this and see what you're seeing.



    Ah, thank you, Mr. Dickey, you've helped me once again.

    In gathering the data you asked for, I discovered that I was using
    an .xmodmaprc that I was unfamiliar with:

    !
    ! This is an `xmodmap' input file for
    ! PC 105 key, wide Delete, tall Enter (XFree86; US) keyboards.
    ! Automatically generated on Thu Aug 19 22:17:51 2004 by mellman with
    ! XKeyCaps 2.46; Copyright (c) 1999 Jamie Zawinski .
    ! http://www.jwz.org/xkeycaps/
    !
    ! This file presupposes that the keyboard is in the default state, and
    ! may malfunction if it is not.
    !
    remove Lock = Caps_Lock
    remove Mod2 = Num_Lock
    remove Mod4 = Meta_L Meta_R
    remove Mod5 = Scroll_Lock

    keycode 0x42 = Control_L
    keycode 0x5E = backslash bar
    keycode 0x73 = Super_L
    keycode 0x74 = Super_R Multi_key
    keycode 0x6D = Control_R Multi_key

    add Control = Control_L
    add Mod1 = 0x007D

    Removing this - I guess it's the add Mod1 = 0x007D - whatever that might
    be - cleared up my problem for me.




    >
    >
    >>By modifying the xterm function HandleEightBitKeyPressed(), I have
    >>gotten to the point where no re-writing happens. But that's tacky.

    >
    >
    > It's vague as well - you could be talking about one of the *LookupString
    > functions. Or it could be in the ensuing logic...
    >
    >
    >>What is the best list to moan and complain about xterm?

    >
    >
    > I generally use google to find these comments
    > (though recently it's become unreliable ;-)



    Have you noticed a change in Googles performance?





  4. Re: xterm - how to disable eight-bit rewriting

    Thomas Mellman wrote:
    > Thomas Dickey wrote:


    > Ah, thank you, Mr. Dickey, you've helped me once again.


    > In gathering the data you asked for, I discovered that I was using
    > an .xmodmaprc that I was unfamiliar with:


    ok - I hadn't thought of that (xmodmap).

    >> I generally use google to find these comments
    >> (though recently it's become unreliable ;-)


    > Have you noticed a change in Googles performance?


    yes - I regularly query for things related to the programs I work on
    (usually with the same query), and have seen several outages where
    Google is unable to return results more recent than 6 months (or even
    3 years) for periods of a day or so. Also, counts for some data have
    been reduced by about 80% (and by comparing google groups versus google,
    it's easy to see that the reduction is not a correction).

    --
    Thomas E. Dickey
    http://invisible-island.net
    ftp://invisible-island.net

  5. Re: xterm - how to disable eight-bit rewriting

    Thomas Dickey wrote:
    > Thomas Mellman wrote:
    >
    >>Thomas Dickey wrote:

    >
    >
    >>Ah, thank you, Mr. Dickey, you've helped me once again.

    >
    >
    >>In gathering the data you asked for, I discovered that I was using
    >>an .xmodmaprc that I was unfamiliar with:

    >
    >
    > ok - I hadn't thought of that (xmodmap).


    Apparently mod1 invokes the compose function. I hadn't thought of -
    couldn't imagine - how the compose function could be involved, but
    lo and behold, I had a definition there.

    (I'd been pestering the vim newsgroup about the broken macro invocation
    for months...


    >
    >
    >>>I generally use google to find these comments
    >>>(though recently it's become unreliable ;-)

    >
    >
    >>Have you noticed a change in Googles performance?

    >
    >
    > yes - I regularly query for things related to the programs I work on
    > (usually with the same query), and have seen several outages where
    > Google is unable to return results more recent than 6 months (or even
    > 3 years) for periods of a day or so. Also, counts for some data have
    > been reduced by about 80% (and by comparing google groups versus google,
    > it's easy to see that the reduction is not a correction).
    >



    Is it possible that you just noticed those dips and that that's a
    natural consequence of their algorithm? Or is it likely that
    they're trying to tweak their commercial hits at the expense of normal
    searches?

  6. Re: xterm - how to disable eight-bit rewriting

    Thomas Mellman wrote:
    >>>Have you noticed a change in Googles performance?

    >> yes - I regularly query for things related to the programs I work on
    >> (usually with the same query), and have seen several outages where
    >> Google is unable to return results more recent than 6 months (or even
    >> 3 years) for periods of a day or so. Also, counts for some data have
    >> been reduced by about 80% (and by comparing google groups versus google,
    >> it's easy to see that the reduction is not a correction).


    > Is it possible that you just noticed those dips and that that's a
    > natural consequence of their algorithm? Or is it likely that
    > they're trying to tweak their commercial hits at the expense of normal
    > searches?


    No - I took that into account. They've been biasing the results for
    quite a while (moving commercial stuff up the rankings).

    But the outages sound more like they've lost some context from the
    server that tends to handle my queries (noting that the same query from
    two different points on the net will produce different results, but when
    repeated on the same host will produce more/less the same result). The
    80% loss however seems to be permanent (counts didn't come back over the
    past month or so, since the outages started).

    --
    Thomas E. Dickey
    http://invisible-island.net
    ftp://invisible-island.net

  7. Re: xterm - how to disable eight-bit rewriting

    Thomas Dickey wrote:
    > Thomas Mellman wrote:
    >
    >>>>Have you noticed a change in Googles performance?
    >>>
    >>>yes - I regularly query for things related to the programs I work on
    >>>(usually with the same query), and have seen several outages where
    >>>Google is unable to return results more recent than 6 months (or even
    >>>3 years) for periods of a day or so. Also, counts for some data have
    >>>been reduced by about 80% (and by comparing google groups versus google,
    >>>it's easy to see that the reduction is not a correction).

    >
    >
    >>Is it possible that you just noticed those dips and that that's a
    >>natural consequence of their algorithm? Or is it likely that
    >>they're trying to tweak their commercial hits at the expense of normal
    >>searches?

    >
    >
    > No - I took that into account. They've been biasing the results for
    > quite a while (moving commercial stuff up the rankings).
    >
    > But the outages sound more like they've lost some context from the
    > server that tends to handle my queries (noting that the same query from
    > two different points on the net will produce different results, but when
    > repeated on the same host will produce more/less the same result). The
    > 80% loss however seems to be permanent (counts didn't come back over the
    > past month or so, since the outages started).
    >



    Is Google better than other search services? Several years ago,
    somebody in the open source community mentioned "googling something" and
    I decided to switch from "alta vista". Actually, I can't say I ever
    noticed a difference. ... ah, the one reason I don't use, say Yahoo,
    is that I don't like all the advertisements and noise that you get there.

    I mean, an 80% cut in hits presumably means an 80% cut in servers and
    collection bandwidth. Perhaps they're engaging in "profit-taking" now
    that their reign is undisputed.

  8. Re: xterm - how to disable eight-bit rewriting

    Thomas Mellman writes:

    >I mean, an 80% cut in hits presumably means an 80% cut in servers and
    >collection bandwidth. Perhaps they're engaging in "profit-taking" now
    >that their reign is undisputed.


    Possibly; to me it feels as if their ever "improving" result ordening
    has come to the point that I no longer find the stuff I am looking for.

    For me, google doesn't work as well as it did before. Looks like the
    a market opportunity for a new contender is there now.

    Casper

    --
    Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
    to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
    Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
    be fiction rather than truth.

  9. Re: xterm - how to disable eight-bit rewriting

    Casper H.S. Dik wrote:
    > Thomas Mellman writes:
    >
    >
    >>I mean, an 80% cut in hits presumably means an 80% cut in servers and
    >>collection bandwidth. Perhaps they're engaging in "profit-taking" now
    >>that their reign is undisputed.

    >
    >
    > Possibly; to me it feels as if their ever "improving" result ordening
    > has come to the point that I no longer find the stuff I am looking for.
    >
    > For me, google doesn't work as well as it did before. Looks like the
    > a market opportunity for a new contender is there now.
    >
    > Casper
    >



    It's difficult to be objective, though - we need a new science -
    googlology! Quantifying the google experience. Who says computer
    science isn't?


  10. Re: xterm - how to disable eight-bit rewriting

    Thomas Mellman wrote:

    > Is Google better than other search services? Several years ago,
    > somebody in the open source community mentioned "googling something" and
    > I decided to switch from "alta vista". Actually, I can't say I ever
    > noticed a difference. ... ah, the one reason I don't use, say Yahoo,
    > is that I don't like all the advertisements and noise that you get there.


    Another problem with yahoo (used occasionally) is that it's heavily
    processed (discards too much useful information in the attempt to provide
    relevant results).

    > I mean, an 80% cut in hits presumably means an 80% cut in servers and
    > collection bandwidth. Perhaps they're engaging in "profit-taking" now
    > that their reign is undisputed.


    That's possible. I was interpreting the 80% differently. As I
    understand it, a given query is mapped onto a (set of?) servers which
    are constantly obtaining commonly-requested slices of data. If I'm
    seeing missing information, some of those servers either died or were
    rededicated to more profitable queries.

    --
    Thomas E. Dickey
    http://invisible-island.net
    ftp://invisible-island.net

  11. Re: xterm - how to disable eight-bit rewriting

    Thomas Dickey wrote:
    > Thomas Mellman wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Is Google better than other search services? Several years ago,
    >>somebody in the open source community mentioned "googling something" and
    >>I decided to switch from "alta vista". Actually, I can't say I ever
    >>noticed a difference. ... ah, the one reason I don't use, say Yahoo,
    >>is that I don't like all the advertisements and noise that you get there.

    >
    >
    > Another problem with yahoo (used occasionally) is that it's heavily
    > processed (discards too much useful information in the attempt to provide
    > relevant results).
    >
    >
    >>I mean, an 80% cut in hits presumably means an 80% cut in servers and
    >>collection bandwidth. Perhaps they're engaging in "profit-taking" now
    >>that their reign is undisputed.

    >
    >
    > That's possible. I was interpreting the 80% differently. As I
    > understand it, a given query is mapped onto a (set of?) servers which
    > are constantly obtaining commonly-requested slices of data. If I'm
    > seeing missing information, some of those servers either died or were
    > rededicated to more profitable queries.
    >



    Oh, right, I've got you. Yes, that's what I'm afraid of, too. We're
    irrelevant. Sometimes I feel like I'm in "Fahrenheit 451" - preserving
    a flame that nobody cares about. In about 15 years I'll die of old age
    and they can bury Unix with me.



  12. Re: xterm - how to disable eight-bit rewriting

    in message <4561D18B.20603@web.de>,
    wrote Thomas Mellman ...

    > In about 15 years I'll die of old age and they can bury Unix with
    > me.


    Aw, don't say that (especially the last part). :


    - parv

    --
    As nice it is to receive personal mail, too much sweetness causes
    tooth decay. Unless you have burning desire to contact me, do not do
    away w/ WhereElse in the address for private communication.


  13. Re: xterm - how to disable eight-bit rewriting

    parv wrote:
    > in message <4561D18B.20603@web.de>,
    > wrote Thomas Mellman ...
    >
    >
    >>In about 15 years I'll die of old age and they can bury Unix with
    >>me.

    >
    >
    > Aw, don't say that (especially the last part). :
    >
    >
    > - parv
    >



    Don't worry, everybody else will have had enough sense to have moved on
    by then. Google will return:

    Your search - unix - did not match any documents.

    (I love your smiley(?) face!)

+ Reply to Thread