| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Decibels
Veteran
Joined: 16 Aug 2002
Posts: 1623
Location: U.S.A.
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2004 6:10 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| IntergalacticWalrus wrote: | | ...unless you're a masochist or something. Besides there are many advantages to running an X11 terminal (especially a powerful one, ie. Konsole). |
Oh ya, konsole is one of the best. IMHO
_________________
Support bacteria – they’re the only culture some people have.”
– Steven Wright |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
deLockloire
n00b
Joined: 10 Dec 2003
Posts: 62
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2004 7:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| IntergalacticWalrus wrote: | | What's the big deal with limited console size? Just use a terminal program under X11 and stop whining. |
look, i found something that works like crap. it bugged me. i wanted to solve it. no big deal. but ur "use GUI and stop whining" comment will no doubt be considered a divine intervention in the history of this thread  no offense, but if u don't want to or can't help, or are not interested in the problem, u might as well just stay silent. 
| IntergalacticWalrus wrote: | | The Linux terminal wasn't meant to be something you'd really do work on, unless you're a masochist or something. |
well, somebody's made a grave mistake not to tell me about this a long time ago. how come so few people are actually aware of this sacred knowledge? but seriously:
 WHAT??!
u possibly can't be serious about this. i think i just didn't even hear this  as for being masochistic, it's no question of that. it's a question of preference. i simply don't like administering my system in GUI environment and i like to work on at least 3-4 terminals at once. it gives me freedom and enables me to have a good grip of what's going on in my system. hence the problem of the small buffer and the bufferpurge when switching. don't get me wrong, i'm not an old-timer unix guru or something. surely u can see ur suggestion is actually much closer to the windows way of solving things... 
| IntergalacticWalrus wrote: | | Besides there are many advantages to running an X11 terminal (especially a powerful one, ie. Konsole). |
oh, there's no question of that, i'm sure. in GUI, i use Konsole, but i simply prefer CLI. i find it easier to handle, clearer to view, and more powerful to learn. the other reasons u already know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
olav
Apprentice
Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 194
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2004 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| IntergalacticWalrus wrote: | The Linux terminal wasn't meant to be something you'd really do work on, unless you're a masochist or something.
|
That is just plain wrong.
| Quote: |
Besides there are many advantages to running an X11 terminal (especially a powerful one, ie. Konsole).
|
One shouldn't have to install and run X in order to do CLI work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deLockloire
n00b
Joined: 10 Dec 2003
Posts: 62
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2004 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| olav wrote: | | One shouldn't have to install and run X in order to do CLI work. |
eh, now u're talking. the first to speak my language. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
devsk
Advocate
Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 2995
Location: Bay Area, CA
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2004 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hello! you are not alone...I have been following this thread and face the problem as well...its a little strange that this problem is still unsolved...but that shows that many people are doing their work inside X whether with minimal WM or full fledged desktop manager!
but this is what open source is about...either having choices or if they don't exist, creating new ones....you don't just have to 'tee' all commands that you type...you don't just have to have a screen manager if you don't like it...you don't just have to have windows... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Decibels
Veteran
Joined: 16 Aug 2002
Posts: 1623
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2004 12:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| devsk wrote: | hello! you are not alone...I have been following this thread and face the problem as well...its a little strange that this problem is still unsolved...but that shows that many people are doing their work inside X whether with minimal WM or full fledged desktop manager!
but this is what open source is about...either having choices or if they don't exist, creating new ones....you don't just have to 'tee' all commands that you type...you don't just have to have a screen manager if you don't like it...you don't just have to have windows... |
Hey I don't normally work with non-gui command-line interfaces. I like gui, but like all things, also like to know how to do things a different way, efficiently enough to fix my system and others when the gui just doesn't work. Even use xforwarding in ssh quite freq.
So have been searching thru my unix books, googling... and looks like most of the answers have been already given that will work, in the beginning of the thread.
| devsk wrote: | | but that shows that many people are doing their work inside X whether with minimal WM or full fledged desktop manager |
That is probably the biggest reason that there isn't an answer to satisfy you deLockloire.
| devsk wrote: | | but this is what open source is about...either having choices or if they don't exist, creating new ones.... |
Exactly, you could always re-write some of the code, make a patch and submit it to the kernel people, write your own code to store the extra history for your scrollback pleasure, or talk someone into writing it for you (but then you would probably run into the problem, that most people seem to be doing their work in X mentioned above and find it hard to get any takers), or they will just tell you to use screen.
Here are a few things I found:
http://www.europe.redhat.com/documentation/FAQ/Linux-FAQ/x2580.php3
| Code: | You can't increase the amount of scrollback, because it is implemented using the video memory to store the scrollback text. You may be able to get more scrollback in each virtual console by reducing the total number of VC's. See linux/tty.h.
|
This seems to be repeated in a lot of other places found or they are also repeating the same source.
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=1080
| Code: | | Scroll_Backward (Shift-PageUp): scroll console up. These two functions are implemented by using the memory on the video card, and provide only a very limited scrollback facility. Moreover, all scrollback information is lost when you switch virtual consoles. So, for real scrollback use a program-like screen. |
Notice they say to use screen, lot of other sites also mention to use it or tee,.....
If you look in the kernel docs there is item of interest:
1) Console drivers: VGA text console
Saying Y here will allow you to use Linux in text mode through a display that complies with the generic VGA standard. Virtually everyone wants that.
The program SVGATextMode can be used to utilize SVGA video cards to their full potential in text mode. Download it from <ftp://ibiblio.org/pub/Linux/utils/console/>.
2) On http://www.tldp.org/FAQ/Linux-FAQ/tips.html#scrollback-in-text-mode
It mentions about #define VGA_CAN_DO_64B . Add the line to the start of the file drivers/video/vgacon.c.
Again, like mentioned already, if you don't like something in opensource, your free to change it. So you have the option of doing this also yourself.
So it looks like you have already been given multiple choices.
JPMRaptor tee
Tazmanian screen
mhodak kernel hacking
The other post you mentioned.
And the two above.
There are a few other things I need to look into before post more yet.
Few other things didn't work, the most could get was 13 pages back.
If not, don't dissect my post and point out how wrong I am on it. A plain simple: "That didn't work would suffice". Hope I crossed all my t's and dotted all my i's, so this doesn't get spit back in my face. Cause you probably will try. 
_________________
Support bacteria – they’re the only culture some people have.”
– Steven Wright |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deLockloire
n00b
Joined: 10 Dec 2003
Posts: 62
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2004 2:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
in a way, this thread is already considered solved. hence the "SOLUTION" i put in the title after my post of Mon Jan 05, 2004 10:45 pm, which explains why a direct changing of the scrollback buffer cannot be accomplished. but, of course, any suggestions were and are still welcome.
@ Decibels --> i'll try ur findings as soon as i'm back to my gentoo box. thanks
@ devsk --> the guy who suggested the redesignment of the console handling in the kernel wrote his proposition in 1997. so it seems this is not a very high priority project. and, yes, this might have a lot to do with the X being increasingly more popular.
| Decibels wrote: | | If not, don't dissect my post and point out how wrong I am on it. A plain simple: "That didn't work would suffice". Hope I crossed all my t's and dotted all my i's, so this doesn't get spit back in my face. Cause you probably will try. |
gosh, do i look that ungreatful? that's depressing... i don't think i was fussy about minute and insignificant details, nor did i dissect people's post only to say how wrong they were (especially if they were trying to help me). but in case it seems that way, i reckon i'm going to have an infamous reputation in this forum. so don't worry, as far as i'm concerned, ur dotted i's and crossed t's are safe (...at least for the time being--buhahahahaha) btw, the only reason that u might've felt i dissected ur posts is the fact that u weren't very attentive as to what actually has or hasn't been said that far. but u're so very helpful (seriously) that i'm sorry if i seemed ungreatful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Corw|n of Amber
Apprentice
Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 221
Location: Socialist Sovietic Republic of Belgium
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2004 2:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| deLockloire wrote: | | @ devsk --> the guy who suggested the redesignment of the console handling in the kernel wrote his proposition in 1997. so it seems this is not a very high priority project. and, yes, this might have a lot to do with the X being increasingly more popular. |
His propositions sound very sane to me. That seems not even very difficult to implement... depending on how that code interacts with the other parts of the kernel, though. But simply displacing the handling of the scrollback from VGA memory (1) to RAM (2) does not seem an über-difficult task... (if only I had finished computer school...)
1 : now that sounds like a dirty hack
2 : kernel or user space? I suppose kernel, but as significant stuff like some hardware support (e.g. parallel port devices and some USB thingies) is going userland it's not mandatory - but then you'd need userspace utilities and screen can do that anyway
_________________
Whoever is enough of a fanatic to KILL people should be shot on sight. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vdboor
Guru
Joined: 03 Dec 2003
Posts: 592
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2004 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| IntergalacticWalrus wrote: | | What's the big deal with limited console size? Just use a terminal program under X11 and stop whining. The Linux terminal wasn't meant to be something you'd really do work on, unless you're a masochist or something. Besides there are many advantages to running an X11 terminal (especially a powerful one, ie. Konsole). |
I'll try to explain.
different people, different minds.
I'm a KDE user. I get a cup of tea before my desktop appears, but I like the bloated eye candy, the tabbed konsole, and to configure kde with point&click. (but I use the console/vim a lot for administration tasks)
but some people just don't like these bloated desktops.
Take a look around in the screenshot sections. I've seen a lot of desktops I wouldn't feel comfortable with. If my machine was an 486, I would be whining about the virtual consoles. (perhaps use xfce4/fluxbox/twm in X) Serious work can be done at the virtual console. that's what they've been designed for before unix/linux had X.
_________________
The best way to accelerate a windows server is by 9.81M/S²
Linux user #311670 and Yet Another Perl Programmer
[ screenies | Coding on KMess ] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ejona
n00b
Joined: 09 Jan 2004
Posts: 11
Location: Texas, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2004 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I am fairly new to Linux, yet I still use the normal non-X terminal the greater majority of the time (esp. if I'm root). I mess with settings on X constantly so I never want to have to wait for a compilation to finish before I restart X. I am going to have to play with some of the "solutions" and see what happens. I don't think deLockloire is going to get an easy setting any time soon if it isn't already out there. You have to remember, the non-X terminal had to be more popular in the past (I mean - there was a point in time that very few people had X). Of all the bug fixes, improvements, and new programs the programmers are working on, this should be one of the simplest to fix - right (definitly the buffer - more iffy on the clearing of the buffer)? If #define VGA_CAN_DO_64B works well, why doesn't someone have that a kernel option?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
veal
n00b
Joined: 08 May 2003
Posts: 47
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2004 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vdboor wrote: | | Tazmanian wrote: | | You can also use "screen", which not only has its own scrollback buffer, but is also a really handy tool. |
It's quite strange, but I can't use it when the screen is attached in the 'konsole' terminal. Does anyone have a clue about this? |
same with me, but only if i start my terminal with e.g. aterm -e screen, only starting aterm, then manually entering screen then the scrollback does work.. same with xterm btw, and i dunno how to solve it :/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Decibels
Veteran
Joined: 16 Aug 2002
Posts: 1623
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 2:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oooohhh, speaking of gui cli's is risky at best on this thread. 
_________________
Support bacteria – they’re the only culture some people have.”
– Steven Wright |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dinini
Apprentice
Joined: 11 Jun 2003
Posts: 236
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 2:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Decibels wrote: | | Oooohhh, speaking of gui cli's is risky at best on this thread. |
Speaking of gui cli's is not a problem. Recommending that one shouldn't use the base interface because there are gui cli's is the problem |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Decibels
Veteran
Joined: 16 Aug 2002
Posts: 1623
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 4:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
_________________
Support bacteria – they’re the only culture some people have.”
– Steven Wright |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deLockloire
n00b
Joined: 10 Dec 2003
Posts: 62
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 4:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
*very* risky indeed. i'll have ur eyelids hooked up, ur knees knocked down, u tied a knot on, bundled up, impaled, staked, decapitalized, boweled, burnt, and finally i'm going to eat you all up--of course, with the appropriate dressing, i might add, and a portion of fresh vegetable salad with mayonnaise (to compensate for the heavy meat) and a glass of dry red wine. perhaps, i'm also going to have an appetizer liquor and an appropriate chaser before the meal. after all, i'm not uncivilized.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Decibels
Veteran
Joined: 16 Aug 2002
Posts: 1623
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 4:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
SEEEEE, I told you Dinini. I was right. lol
Did anybody ever try the #define VGA_CAN_DO_64B and see if it works or not?
_________________
Support bacteria – they’re the only culture some people have.”
– Steven Wright |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deLockloire
n00b
Joined: 10 Dec 2003
Posts: 62
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 6:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Decibels wrote: | | Did anybody ever try the #define VGA_CAN_DO_64B and see if it works or not? |
i will, tomorrow. i'll post my results. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dinini
Apprentice
Joined: 11 Jun 2003
Posts: 236
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 11:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| deLockloire wrote: | | *very* risky indeed. |
Guess that's my cue to run and hide Never mind that I don't even have X installed on most of my linux boxes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deLockloire
n00b
Joined: 10 Dec 2003
Posts: 62
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dinini wrote: | | I don't even have installed on most of my linux boxes. |
interesting. how come this problem never bugged you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jcc
Apprentice
Joined: 30 May 2003
Posts: 233
Location: Fort de France, Martinique
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 10:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ejona wrote: | | I am fairly new to Linux, yet I still use the normal non-X terminal the greater majority of the time (esp. if I'm root). I mess with settings on X constantly so I never want to have to wait for a compilation to finish before I restart X. I am going to have to play with some of the "solutions" and see what happens. I don't think deLockloire is going to get an easy setting any time soon if it isn't already out there. You have to remember, the non-X terminal had to be more popular in the past (I mean - there was a point in time that very few people had X). Of all the bug fixes, improvements, and new programs the programmers are working on, this should be one of the simplest to fix - right (definitly the buffer - more iffy on the clearing of the buffer)? If #define VGA_CAN_DO_64B works well, why doesn't someone have that a kernel option?? |
because SCREEN_CAN_DO_WHATEVER_YOU_WANT_AND_SO_MUCH_MORE ?? The cli has envolved beyond anyone's hope through this tool. What is this thread about? I'm sure all screen users wonder... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deLockloire
n00b
Joined: 10 Dec 2003
Posts: 62
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2004 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
hello everyone
I've tried to add the option "#define VGA_CAN_DO_64B" to my drivers/video/console/vgacon.c, but nothing was changed. then I browsed through vgacon.c, and realized that the right code is | Code: | | #define VGA_CAN_DO_64KB |
(must be a typo in the howto) and, guess what, it worked! i've managed to up my buffer to 403 lines (up from 180 lines) without having to enable the framebuffer mode for the consoles.
other. screen rulez. i've tried it, and it seems to be a great window-manager. however, i couldn't change the buffer size or its behavior (despite the fact that it defines a default of 1000 lines long sc-back buffer (which i checked). but i haven't read the man page fully yet, so the soution might be waiting for me in there... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Decibels
Veteran
Joined: 16 Aug 2002
Posts: 1623
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2004 1:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | (must be a typo in the howto) and, guess what, it worked! i've managed to up my buffer to 403 lines (up from 180 lines) without having to enable the framebuffer mode for the consoles. |
Ya, must be a typo, cause that is what I found there. I didn't think it looked right, but didn't play with it to see. Glad it worked! Can I get a cookie for my effort?
_________________
Support bacteria – they’re the only culture some people have.”
– Steven Wright |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deLockloire
n00b
Joined: 10 Dec 2003
Posts: 62
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2004 3:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Decibels wrote: | | Can I get a cookie for my effort? |
u can even get two (i'm in a very generous mood). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
devsk
Advocate
Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 2995
Location: Bay Area, CA
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2004 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think screen satisfied one of the requirements partially and other completely:
1. bigger scrollback buffer but still limited to 1000 lines. -h 2000 doesn't increase it, neither does "defscrollback" in screenrc.
2. switching between windows doesn't lose the scrollback. wow!!
EXCELLENT!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deLockloire
n00b
Joined: 10 Dec 2003
Posts: 62
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2004 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jcc wrote: | | because SCREEN_CAN_DO_WHATEVER_YOU_WANT_AND_SO_MUCH_MORE ?? |
| devsk wrote: | | bigger scrollback buffer but still limited to 1000 lines. -h 2000 doesn't increase it, neither does "defscrollback" in screenrc. |
i think i wasn't really clear. 1) when in screen, my default settings are active (default meaning the settings in effect without(!) screen--this, thanks to the "#define VGA_CAN_DO_64KB" setting, means 403lines of scrl-back for me), even though the scrollback buffer is set to 1000 in ~/.screenrc. i just don't know why it doesn't work. in addition, if u open a new window (within screen) it trims your scrollback buffer by ~25 lines (for me at least). not that i'd mind that 25 lines if it worked like i'd like...
| devsk wrote: | | switching between windows doesn't lose the scrollback. wow!! |
unfortunately, this is not the case. screen retains the buffer as long as u remain on the terminal it was opened on. if u switch termnals (e.g., to do sg under GUI), the scrollback buffer is purged in the same old way.
anybody any suggestions? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Other Things Gentoo
