ally, though.
-brad
> -Original Message-
> From: Guido Guenther [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf
> Of Guido Guenther
> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 3:29 PM
> To: Bradley Bell
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: XFree4.2 -> unstable?
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 19,
ally, though.
-brad
> -Original Message-
> From: Guido Guenther [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf
> Of Guido Guenther
> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 3:29 PM
> To: Bradley Bell
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: XFree4.2 -> unstable?
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 19,
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 03:16:07PM -0700, Bradley Bell wrote:
> > NG1: Revision 6, 24 bitplanes, REX3 revision B, VC2 revision A, xmap9
> > revision A, cmap revision D, bt9445 revision D
> > NG1: Screensize 1024x768
> > Console: colour SGI Newport 128x48
> >
&g
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 03:16:07PM -0700, Bradley Bell wrote:
> > NG1: Revision 6, 24 bitplanes, REX3 revision B, VC2 revision A, xmap9
> > revision A, cmap revision D, bt9445 revision D
> > NG1: Screensize 1024x768
> > Console: colour SGI Newport 128x48
> >
&g
isn't xterm the 'de facto' standard? it would seem to me that any options
xterm understands ought to be supported by x-terminal-emulator. If
a certain terminal emulater is not xterm compatible, it would be trivial to
provide an 'xterm compatibility wrapper', and have x-terminal-emulator point
to
isn't xterm the 'de facto' standard? it would seem to me that any options
xterm understands ought to be supported by x-terminal-emulator. If
a certain terminal emulater is not xterm compatible, it would be trivial to
provide an 'xterm compatibility wrapper', and have x-terminal-emulator point
to
6 matches
Mail list logo