Why have "shell" when there's "term"

Why have "shell" when there's "term"

[J Krugman]

It seems to me that "M-x term" is in every way superior to "M-x
shell".  What's the point of the latter?

Thanks,

	-Jill

Re: Why have "shell" when there's "term"

[Lute Kamstra]

J Krugman <jill_krugman@yahoo.com> writes:

> It seems to me that "M-x term" is in every way superior to "M-x
> shell".  What's the point of the latter?

I'm curious: can you be a bit more specific?  Can you give examples of
things which are done better by `term' then by `shell'?

I've been using `shell' for quite some time and am quite happy with
it.  I just tried `term' for the first time in Emacs 21 and it seemed
broken as a simple ls in bash spat out badly aligned text columns.
IIRC, it used to work in Emacs 20.  Do you use the latter version?

[Mental note: write bug report.]

Lute.

-- 
(spook) => "subversive Firewalls bomb"
(insert-file-contents "~/.signature") => (error "`~/.signature' too rude")

Re: Why have "shell" when there's "term"

[Hallvard B Furuseth]

J Krugman wrote:

> It seems to me that "M-x term" is in every way superior to "M-x
> shell".  What's the point of the latter?

I just tried M-x term and didn't like it.  Normal Emacs keystrokes were
no longer available, so I couldn't e.g. copy text and yank it elsewhere
the same way as before.  The Info mode says C-c C-k turns on line mode
which makes it more like M-x shell, but that seems to have been
overstating the case.

I'll stay with M-x shell.  That's still basically Emacs, unlike M-x term
which tries not to be.

-- 
Hallvard

Re: Why have "shell" when there's "term"

[Lute Kamstra]

Lute Kamstra <Lute.Kamstra@cwi.nl> writes:

[...]

> I just tried `term' for the first time in Emacs 21 and it seemed
> broken as a simple ls in bash spat out badly aligned text columns.

Oops, this just happens in CVS Emacs 21.3.50.  I got lost in my
home-grown version jungle.

Lute.

-- 
(spook) => "Project Monarch arrangements David John Oates"
(insert-file-contents "~/.signature") => (error "`~/.signature' too rude")

Re: Why have "shell" when there's "term"

[Eric Hanchrow]

In shell mode, all of Emacs is readily avaiable; in term mode, it
isn't.

Here's what I mean: 

* in shell mode, you can easily scroll back to the beginning of the
  buffer with M-<, just like any other buffer; I don't think there's
  any way to do that in term.

* in shell mode, you can copy anything in the buffer -- your input or
  the computer's output -- with M-w, just like any other buffer; I
  don't think there's any way to do that in term.

Etc. etc.

-- 
People studying literature rarely say anything that would be of the
slightest use to those producing it.
        -- Paul Graham

Re: Why have "shell" when there's "term"

[J Krugman]

In <87y90f9mm7.fsf@blarg.net> Eric Hanchrow <offby1@blarg.net> writes:

>In shell mode, all of Emacs is readily avaiable; in term mode, it
>isn't.

>Here's what I mean: 

>* in shell mode, you can easily scroll back to the beginning of the
>  buffer with M-<, just like any other buffer; I don't think there's
>  any way to do that in term.

>* in shell mode, you can copy anything in the buffer -- your input or
>  the computer's output -- with M-w, just like any other buffer; I
>  don't think there's any way to do that in term.

>Etc. etc.

You can easily do all that in term.  Just go into line mode (C-c
C-j), and when you're done with doing Emacs stuff, go back to char
mode (C-c C-k).

But I guess the answer to my question is that Emacs has these two
highly redundant functions because each has a constituency...

Re: Why have "shell" when there's "term"

[Barry Margolin]

In article <bbr3io$oh$1@reader1.panix.com>,
J Krugman  <jill_krugman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>But I guess the answer to my question is that Emacs has these two
>highly redundant functions because each has a constituency...

At least 90% of Unix programs don't make use of full-screen features, and
this is what M-x shell is designed to support.  term is for applications
that depend on a video terminal for their UI.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barry.margolin@level3.com
Level(3), Woburn, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.

Re: Why have "shell" when there's "term"

[Lute Kamstra]

Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth(nospam)@usit.uio(nospam).no> writes:

> I just tried M-x term and didn't like it.  Normal Emacs keystrokes were
> no longer available, so I couldn't e.g. copy text and yank it elsewhere
> the same way as before.  The Info mode says C-c C-k turns on line mode
                                              ^^^^^^^
                                              C-c C-j does this

[There is a bug in the info documentation.  It is fixed in CVS.]

> which makes it more like M-x shell, but that seems to have been
> overstating the case.

Lute.

-- 
(spook) => "Comirex ISEC NASA"
(insert-file-contents "~/.signature") => (error "`~/.signature' too rude")

Re: Why have "shell" when there's "term"

[Subhankar Chatterjee]

Hello,

J Krugman <jill_krugman@yahoo.com> writes:

> It seems to me that "M-x term" is in every way superior to "M-x
> shell".  What's the point of the latter?

Try the Emacs shell or [M-x eshell]

> 	-Jill
Regards
-Subhankar


-- 
blue pill or red pill
--