Seqed: Telnet 2.5 incompatibilities

R.Doelz,Biocomputing Basel;+41 61 267 22 47 doelz at urz.unibas.ch
Tue Nov 8 20:09:54 EST 1994

In article <ALEX.94Nov7145058 at dapsun.lif.icnet.uk>, alex at dapsun.lif.icnet.uk (Alex Whittaker) writes:
>   We are offering the GCG 8.0 release on our Digital AXP (Alpha) system
>  running OSF/1 and are experiencing some difficulties with the Seqed/lineup
>  software run over a Mac Telnet version 2.5 terminal. The problem is
>  relates to the arrow keys which the mapping for which is changed from ^[[A
>  ^[[B ^[[C and ^[[D to  ^[OA ^[OB ^[OC and ^[OD. This is not interpreted
>  correctly, and causes the editor to discard the escape O and print a
>  capital A B C or D to the screen. As seqed is fairly essential to the
>  running of a reasonable service, and most users connect through telnet 2.5
>  we are very concerned. I voiced these concerns to GCG and had the
>  following response:
>>One thing that you can try is:
>>Edit Config.tel (on the MAC)
>>Then log on to the unix system.   For sun set term=vt200 for
>>irix set term=vt220.  I'm not sure which to try on OSF.  This does not work on
>>Ultrix, and since OSF is also from DEC it may not work their either.  (but
>>you can take the sun terminfo entry for vt200 and compile it on the ultrix
>>machine and the arrow keys will work)
> ..
>>We never tracked down the exact source of the problem, and no longer have
>>version 2.5 for testing.
>   Although I appreciate that it is difficult to cater for differences in
>  other peoples software, upgrading telnet accross arround 400 macs is not a
>  short term solution. The alternative suggested modification to the
>  config.tel file has the effect of turning off the arrow keys completely.
>   Has anyone else been able to resolve this issue, could they share it with
>  us. If not, can anyone suggest an alternative sequence editor in the
>  public domain, compatible with our system.

Macs at our site work happily with NCSA 2.5 and
% setenv TERM ansi

Reason being, that the 'termcap' entry on OSF/1 defines lots of 
padding and other things, e.g. a 5 milliseconds padding for relative 
cursor screen movement (cm=5\E[%i%d;%dH). The vt200 features are different
and will kill the seqed program also. The 'ansi' definition does not have 
any of these  features but is a 'ansi terminal with pessimistic assumptions' 
- however, I am not aware of possible ramifications of this setting.

Maybe this helps
Reinhard Doelz
EMBnet Switzerland

More information about the Info-gcg mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net