Re: Why does decvte.c exists?

[Aivils <ai...@un...>]

On Monday 03 May 2004 06:03, lin...@li... wrote:
> the question goes to mainly to James Simmons (jsi...@in...).
> 
> The chance of getting the multihead feature into mainline
> would be higher if the VTE was the same in the ruby tree.
> 
> Maintainability is better if the terminal emulator
> is in its separate source file but why didn't you used
> the original Linux implementation?

If anytime ruby-tree will be merged with Linus-tree, then ruby code will be
splited into small pieces. Rather decvte.c stay out of Linus-tree.

Ta accelerate merging anybody (master of business administration) should
manipulate with mind of Linus-tree maintainers. Merging is politic question
primarily and technical question secondary. Of course ready for use code
may help add this nice feature. Basic knowlege of programming may help.
Feel free to change standpoint of Linux community :)

I am new under Linux. I have not religious attitude towards TTY. I never
work on teletypewriter terminal and i work very limited time on VT100 or
similar terminals. Anyway i am (up to date) minicomputer fan.

Also clean solution of multiple local xf86 is possible right now.
/dev/eventXX drivers for xf86 are complete long time ago. Since SEP-2003
secondary keyboard may be unbounded from TTY via EVIOCGRAB
ioctl() . Current only keyboard's LEDs will not work. But developers may
complete EVIOCGRAB with less effort (2 lines).

Aivils Stoss