Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!usc!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!LARRY.MCRCIM.MCGILL.EDU!mouse
From: mouse@LARRY.MCRCIM.MCGILL.EDU (der Mouse)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re:  Questions (rlogin vs remote xterm)
Message-ID: <9006040238.AA18036@Larry.McRCIM.McGill.EDU>
Date: 4 Jun 90 02:38:36 GMT
Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background)
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 33

>> Way 1	A% xterm -e rlogin B

>> If you're using a standard rlogin, way 1 has the disadvantage that
>> the rlogin escape character is active.

> It's only a disadvantage if you don't use the advantages provided you
> by the system.

> The command

>	% xterm -e rlogin B -e

> causes the rlogin escape character to be undefined (or more
> specifically to be defined as NUL).

Defined as NUL is not at all the same thing as undefined.  (I modified
rlogin so that when -e is given with no character like that it does
truly cause it to be undefined.  This is what I meant by "standard
rlogin": one that has not had something of this sort done to it.)

I would be most annoyed if I were using this "escape character
undefined" trick and running emacs, and happened to type ^J ^@ ^D and
got disconnected abruptly when I thought I was simply setting a mark
and deleting the next character.  (Well, it wouldn't for me, because my
EOF character isn't ^D, but that's not the point.)  If machine A is
fast enough, I might not even be able to tell what happened, because
the connection would be closed, rlogin would die, and the window would
go away before I saw the message.

					der Mouse

			old: mcgill-vision!mouse
			new: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu