Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site tulane.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!akgua!akgub!tulane!jfk
From: jfk@tulane.UUCP (John Kreuter)
Newsgroups: net.sources
Subject: Re: Pyramid 90x terminals
Message-ID: <172@tulane.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 9-Oct-85 23:06:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: tulane.172
Posted: Wed Oct  9 23:06:51 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 12-Oct-85 08:23:40 EDT
References: <1632@brl-tgr.UUCP> <57700001@hpcnof.UUCP>
Reply-To: jfk@tulane.UUCP (John Kreuter)
Organization: Tulane University, Dept. of Computer Science
Lines: 20
Summary: vt220's and vt100's termcap entries

In article <57700001@hpcnof.UUCP> dat@hpcnof.UUCP writes:
>
>/***** hpcnof:net.sources / birtch!oleg /  6:19 pm  Sep 25, 1985*/
>> I have found that vt52 terminals on our Pyramid 90x ( 4.2 & V5, in 
>> 4.2 BSD univerce) work just fine. vt100 on the other hand did not.
>> I traced the problem to TERMCAP : vt100 entry contains the length of
>> character sequence in front of  "cm", "cl" and some other sequences.
>> That I fixed by setting environment var TERMCAP to be the modifyed
>> vt100 entry from /etc/termcap ( without sequence length :  "cm=\E[..." 
>> instead of "cm=5\E[...")

At Tulane we have been using vt100's and vt220's on the Pyramid, using the
termcap entry as supplied by Pyramid.  We have not experienced any problems.
Are other Pyramid users experiencing problems with these terminals?  Are
there modifications that have optimized the performance of the vt's?

                                                John Kreuter
						Tulane University
						New Orleans, La.
ihnp4!ulysses!tulane!jfk