So, a really basic one here.

What's the current best practice to match term types between vms and ssh
clients? OpenVms doesn't see to understand a termtype of xterm, and I'm
not sure if it recognises termtypes from an (inbound session) openssh
config file.

It would probably be good for VSI to spend a bit of time documenting
this, maybe creating some client configs to try.

--
motk

On 4/16/2024 8:19 PM, motk wrote:
> So, a really basic one here.
>
> What's the current best practice to match term types between vms and ssh
> clients? OpenVms doesn't see to understand a termtype of xterm, and I'm
> not sure if it recognises termtypes from an (inbound session) openssh
> config file.
>
> It would probably be good for VSI to spend a bit of time documenting
> this, maybe creating some client configs to try.

If xterm supports VT200/VT300/VT400 then set terminal to
one of those.

In theory /INQUIRE should work, but but reality can be different.

Arne

On 4/16/2024 8:19 PM, motk wrote:
> So, a really basic one here.
>
> What's the current best practice to match term types between vms and ssh
> clients? OpenVms doesn't see to understand a termtype of xterm, and I'm not sure
> if it recognises termtypes from an (inbound session) openssh config file.
>
> It would probably be good for VSI to spend a bit of time documenting this, maybe
> creating some client configs to try.
>

xterm is software, not a terminal type.

Terminal types include VT100, VT200, VT300, VT400, VT500, and Ok, VT52.

Good practice is:

SET TERMINAL /INQUIRE

Which will inquire what the terminal thinks it is.

VT400 is usually best ...

As always, HELP is your friend.

SET

TERMINAL

/DEVICE_TYPE

/DEVICE_TYPE=terminal-type

Informs the system of the terminal type and sets characteristics
according to the device type specified. You can specify any of
the following terminal types:

UNKNOWN LA100 PRO_SERIES VT102 VT200
FT1-FT8 LA120 VT05 VT105 VT300
LA12 LA210 VT52 VT125 VT400
LA34 LN01K VT55 VT131 VT500
LA36 LN03 VT100 VT132
LA38 LQP02 VT101 VT173

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On 4/16/24 21:15, Dave Froble wrote:
> xterm is software, not a terminal type.

XTerm is both a program /and/ it's own terminal type. It actually has
multiple of it's own terminal types; xterm, xterm-color, and xterm-256color.

There are probably more pieces of software using the xterm terminal type
than are using vt100 terminal type.

--
Grant. . . .

In article <uvn81c$17ui1$1@dont-email.me>,
=?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=C3=B8j?= <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>On 4/16/2024 8:19 PM, motk wrote:
>> So, a really basic one here.
>>
>> What's the current best practice to match term types between vms and ssh
>> clients? OpenVms doesn't see to understand a termtype of xterm, and I'm
>> not sure if it recognises termtypes from an (inbound session) openssh
>> config file.
>>
>> It would probably be good for VSI to spend a bit of time documenting
>> this, maybe creating some client configs to try.
>
>If xterm supports VT200/VT300/VT400 then set terminal to
>one of those.
>
>In theory /INQUIRE should work, but but reality can be different.

/INQUIRE gets "xterm" and VMS doesn't know what to do with that. If it
just would set it to ansi when it gets "xterm" as a string it would be fine.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>
>xterm is software, not a terminal type.

It is both, this is the problem. If you ask it what it it, it says it's
"xterm" and then VMS doesn't know what to do.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 2024-04-17, motk <meh@meh.meh> wrote:
> So, a really basic one here.
>
> What's the current best practice to match term types between vms and ssh
> clients? OpenVms doesn't see to understand a termtype of xterm, and I'm
> not sure if it recognises termtypes from an (inbound session) openssh
> config file.

In my .Xresources, I have:

XTerm*VT100.decTerminalID: vt102

Then on OpenVMS, $ SET TERM/INQUIRE correctly identifies the device
type. This does _not_ affect the TERM environment variable that gets set
in Linux (e.g. `echo $TERM` still reports xterm-256color).

As others have mentioned, something like vt240 or vt420 would be ideal.
xterm's implementation of vt420 ends up making SET TERM/INQUIRE hang for
several seconds, which is annoying since I have SET TERM/INQUIRE in my
LOGIN.COM. This used to happen with vt240 as well, I think, but that has
been fixed and I just tested it: vt240 should be safe now.

I don't rememeber why I've left my xterm set to vt102...I have vague
memories that 'upgrading' to vt240 caused a problem with something not
at all related to VMS, and vt102 works fine in VMS, so I haven't changed
it.

Instead of setting X resources for your whole X session, you can also
launch xterm with "-ti vt240" to override what's in your X resources
database for that invocation of xterm.

-Matthew

On 4/17/2024 4:56 PM, Matthew R. Wilson wrote:
> On 2024-04-17, motk <meh@meh.meh> wrote:
>> So, a really basic one here.
>>
>> What's the current best practice to match term types between vms and ssh
>> clients? OpenVms doesn't see to understand a termtype of xterm, and I'm
>> not sure if it recognises termtypes from an (inbound session) openssh
>> config file.
>
> In my .Xresources, I have:
>
> XTerm*VT100.decTerminalID: vt102
>
> Then on OpenVMS, $ SET TERM/INQUIRE correctly identifies the device
> type. This does _not_ affect the TERM environment variable that gets set
> in Linux (e.g. `echo $TERM` still reports xterm-256color).
>
> As others have mentioned, something like vt240 or vt420 would be ideal.
> xterm's implementation of vt420 ends up making SET TERM/INQUIRE hang for
> several seconds, which is annoying since I have SET TERM/INQUIRE in my
> LOGIN.COM. This used to happen with vt240 as well, I think, but that has
> been fixed and I just tested it: vt240 should be safe now.
>
> I don't rememeber why I've left my xterm set to vt102...I have vague
> memories that 'upgrading' to vt240 caused a problem with something not
> at all related to VMS, and vt102 works fine in VMS, so I haven't changed
> it.
>
> Instead of setting X resources for your whole X session, you can also
> launch xterm with "-ti vt240" to override what's in your X resources
> database for that invocation of xterm.

I believe that VT200/VT300/VT400 and 8bit gives the "best"
VMS experience.

Arne

On 18/4/24 07:14, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

> I believe that VT200/VT300/VT400 and 8bit gives the "best"
> VMS experience.

Thanks all - it's worth a bit more thought, given that X11 is basically
dead, and that most people just open a windows or linux default terminal
and they 'ssh foo@bar'. Windows Terminal does do a lot of work on
terminal emulation and by default presents as xterm.

> Arne

--
motk

On 4/18/2024 7:13 PM, motk wrote:
> On 18/4/24 07:14, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> I believe that VT200/VT300/VT400 and 8bit gives the "best"
>> VMS experience.
>
> Thanks all - it's worth a bit more thought, given that X11 is basically
> dead, and that most people just open a windows or linux default terminal
> and they 'ssh foo@bar'. Windows Terminal does do a lot of work on
> terminal emulation and by default presents as xterm.

It is my impression that the majority of VMS terminal
users today use Putty.

Arne

On 19/04/2024 00:13, motk wrote:
> On 18/4/24 07:14, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>
>> I believe that VT200/VT300/VT400 and 8bit gives the "best"
>> VMS experience.
>
> Thanks all - it's worth a bit more thought, given that X11 is basically
> dead, and that most people just open a windows or linux default terminal
> and they 'ssh foo@bar'. Windows Terminal does do a lot of work on
> terminal emulation and by default presents as xterm.
>
>
>> Arne
>

That is why I always use PuTTY - even on linux.I run my console sessions
from that, then use virsh console <VM name> under KVM/QEMU

--
Chris

On 19/4/24 09:36, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

> It is my impression that the majority of VMS terminal
> users today use Putty.

Putty is kind of ancient, and a huge pain in a11y and general usability.
It's time to look beyond it.

> Arne

--
motk

On 19/4/24 09:39, Chris Townley wrote:

> That is why I always use PuTTY - even on linux.I run my console sessions
> from that, then use virsh console <VM name> under KVM/QEMU

The promox serial console works very well too. A

--
motk

On 4/18/2024 8:06 PM, motk wrote:
> On 19/4/24 09:36, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> It is my impression that the majority of VMS terminal
>> users today use Putty.
>
> Putty is kind of ancient, and a huge pain in a11y and general usability.
> It's time to look beyond it.

It is not new, but neither is xterm.

It works. And due to the large number of users then assistance
is usually possible to get. And you can get something on top
of it like MPutty to get tabbed multi windows.

But if you don't like it then you just use something else.

Arne

On 19/04/2024 01:07, motk wrote:
> On 19/4/24 09:39, Chris Townley wrote:
>
>> That is why I always use PuTTY - even on linux.I run my console
>> sessions from that, then use virsh console <VM name> under KVM/QEMU
>
> The promox serial console works very well too. A
>

PuTTY may be old, but is well maintained, and it works

--
Chris

On 4/18/24 19:28, Chris Townley wrote:
> PuTTY may be old, but is well maintained, and it works

PuTTY, X11, XTerm, OpenVMS, yes they are all still actively maintained
and still work well.

--
Grant. . . .

On 4/18/24 19:06, motk wrote:
> Putty is kind of ancient, and a huge pain in a11y and general usability.

PuTTY is younger than TCP/IP (both v4 and v6) and Ethernet.

> It's time to look beyond it.

Is it time to look past TCP/IP (both v4 and v6) and Ethernet?

N.B. 802.11 WiFi is effectively Ethernet.

--
Grant. . . .

On 19/4/24 13:12, Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 4/18/24 19:06, motk wrote:
>> Putty is kind of ancient, and a huge pain in a11y and general usability.
>
> PuTTY is younger than TCP/IP (both v4 and v6) and Ethernet.
>
>> It's time to look beyond it.
>
> Is it time to look past TCP/IP (both v4 and v6) and Ethernet?

.... what?

> N.B. 802.11 WiFi is effectively Ethernet.

I am aware of 802.foo, yes.

--
motk

On 19/4/24 13:09, Grant Taylor wrote:

> PuTTY, X11, XTerm, OpenVMS, yes they are all still actively maintained
> and still work well.

X11 is literally abandoned, apart from the X11 wayland bits. Please be real.

--
motk

On 4/19/24 00:13, motk wrote:
> On 18/4/24 07:14, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>
>> I believe that VT200/VT300/VT400 and 8bit gives the "best"
>> VMS experience.
>
> Thanks all - it's worth a bit more thought, given that X11 is basically
> dead, and that most people just open a windows or linux default terminal
> and they 'ssh foo@bar'. Windows Terminal does do a lot of work on
> terminal emulation and by default presents as xterm.
>
>
>> Arne
>

Some may be pushing to replace X11 with Wayland, (ugh), but most unix
desktops are still based on X11 at core, with the user desktop GUI
sitting on top of that, and will be for the forseable future.

If it ain't broke, why fix it ?...

Chris

On 19/4/24 20:58, chrisq wrote:

> Some may be pushing to replace X11 with Wayland, (ugh), but most unix
> desktops are still based on X11 at core, with the user desktop GUI
> sitting on top of that, and will be for the forseable future.

[tears out hair in clumps]

Wayland is not X11. X11 is long dead. Explaining why is way too much
effort for this medium, what 'most user desktops' are still X11 at their
core? Arrgh, I'm a hair old greybeard and we need to let go of this.

> If it ain't broke, why fix it ?...

Because it's _broken_. ssh x11 forwarding has been deliberately broken
by _design_ for a _decade_, if you're found using X11 in a corporate
environemt you will get an earnest conversation with people with no
sense of humour, the world is real and here and now.

> Chris

--
motk

On 4/19/24 05:10, motk wrote:
> ... what?

Just because something is not new doesn't mean that it's bad.

OpenVMS is not new by any stretch of the imagination.

It's an old technology that's still actively being maintained.

Old and actively maintained is okay.

Old and unmaintained is going to become a problem, it's only a question
of when.

--
Grant. . . .

On 4/19/24 05:15, motk wrote:
> X11 is literally abandoned, apart from the X11 wayland bits.

No it is not.

I still see updates to X11, not Wayland, monthly if not weekly.

There are still people actively maintaining X11.

There have been 23 announcements of updates to X11 components since
March 23rd this year. ... 59 this year. Or if you include Wayland in
the subject, it's 26 / 63 in 2024.

That seems like the opposite of abandoned to me.

> Please be real.

I am.

--
Grant. . . .

On 4/19/2024 6:15 AM, motk wrote:
> On 19/4/24 13:09, Grant Taylor wrote:
>> PuTTY, X11, XTerm, OpenVMS, yes they are all still actively maintained
>> and still work well.
>
> X11 is literally abandoned, apart from the X11 wayland bits. Please be
> real.

I guess it depends on what you really mean by abandoned.

Is the X11 software still being maintained? Yes it is.

Will the X11 software evolve? Not likely - last major release 7.7 is
from 2012.

Is X11 being replaced by Wayland? Yes - I believe most Linux
distros are moving from x.org to Wayland.

Does any this matter at all? Not much - from a commercial software
perspective it is browser, Windows, macOS, Android and iOS that
matters - neither X11 nor Wayland are particular interesting.

Arne

In article <uvtuef$tku$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net>,
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>On 4/19/24 05:10, motk wrote:
>> ... what?
>
>Just because something is not new doesn't mean that it's bad.
>
>OpenVMS is not new by any stretch of the imagination.
>
>It's an old technology that's still actively being maintained.
>
>Old and actively maintained is okay.
>
>Old and unmaintained is going to become a problem, it's only a question
>of when.

I think that motk's point was that X11 is essentially
unmaintained. There's some limited life support going
on, but no real active development, or even bug fixes.

- Dan C.