From owner-freebsd-current Mon Apr 8 09:47:23 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id JAA08742 for current-outgoing; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 09:47:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ki.net (root@ki.net [205.150.102.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA08733 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 09:47:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from freebsd.ki.net (root@freebsd.ki.net [205.150.102.51]) by ki.net (8.7.4/8.7.4) with ESMTP id MAA13374; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 12:47:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (scrappy@localhost) by freebsd.ki.net (8.7.5/8.7.5) with SMTP id MAA21308; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 12:48:17 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: freebsd.ki.net: scrappy owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 12:48:17 -0400 (EDT) From: "Marc G. Fournier" To: Tony Kimball cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: termcap/curses vs ncurses In-Reply-To: <199604081458.JAA10195@compound.think.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Mon, 8 Apr 1996, Tony Kimball wrote: > > From: "Marc G. Fournier" > Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 01:26:38 -0400 (EDT) > > =09Is *everyone* set against terminfo? If so, I'll work on 1.9.9 > so that it parses only termcap and doesn't create a .terminfo directory, > just sounds crippling to me :( > > One man's opinion: terminfo is gross over-engineering cruft, and more Okay, I got that opinion well sunk in :) > importantly it is a bother for sysadmin. As long as there is no need Bother for sysadmin? How so? Marc G. Fournier | POP Mail Telnet Acct DNS Hosting System | WWW Services Database Services | Knowledge, Administrator | | Information and scrappy@ki.net | WWW: http://www.ki.net | Communications, Inc