Re: [Siglinux] Eterm + vim == arrrrrgh

2003-03-04 Thread Big Mike Forsberg
I think it is a TERM problem. Look at the "UNIX POWER TOOLS" book on the book shelf in the office. It's all there ... in disgusting detail. There is also some info on setting your TERM enviroment variable to another terminal type, if you you want an ugly but easy way out. Just some ideas per yo

Re: [Siglinux] Eterm + vim == arrrrrgh

2003-03-04 Thread Daniel Brown
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 07:11:34PM -0600, Ricardo Lopez wrote: > A random problem just popped up out of nowhere: When I am using vim > through Eterm vim acts up. Specifically, I cannot get into command mode, > or insert mode, and my down key deletes lines a la 'dd'. I first noticed > this while ss

Re: [Siglinux] Eterm + vim == arrrrrgh

2003-03-04 Thread Omar El-Domeiri
nothing beats xterm. -Omar On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 07:11:34PM -0600, Ricardo Lopez wrote: > A random problem just popped up out of nowhere: When I am using vim > through Eterm vim acts up. Specifically, I cannot get into command mode, > or insert mode, and my down key deletes lines a la 'dd'. I

[Siglinux] Eterm + vim == arrrrrgh

2003-03-04 Thread Ricardo Lopez
A random problem just popped up out of nowhere: When I am using vim through Eterm vim acts up. Specifically, I cannot get into command mode, or insert mode, and my down key deletes lines a la 'dd'. I first noticed this while sshed into another box, but it happenes locally as well. When I try xter

Re: [Siglinux] Trying to start X using a script on many machines

2003-03-04 Thread Eric Irrgang
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Paul Sack wrote: >Why does the parallel program need X to be running locally on each host? >Can't you just set a remote DISPLAY variable and finished? I had assumed that they wanted a multiheaded display but didn't have the horsepower to stay on one machine, but if that's not

Re: [Siglinux] Trying to start X using a script on many machines

2003-03-04 Thread Eric Irrgang
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Background X whenever you start it up >ssh $machine "/usr/bin/X11/X &" In general, I find it more elegant to use the -f option to fork off the ssh connection, but in this case, it might be better to change that up a little and do 'ssh $machine "/usr/bi

Re: [Siglinux] Trying to start X using a script on many machines

2003-03-04 Thread Shashank G. Khandelwal
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:28:33PM -0600, Paul Sack wrote: > Today at 2:37pm, Shashank G. Khandelwal expounded: > > ++ I'm running a parallel program that needs X runnin > ++ all the nodes of our cluster. Previously, people > ++ would physically login to the machines. That's > ++ just silly with a

Re: [Siglinux] Trying to start X using a script on many machines

2003-03-04 Thread Paul Sack
Today at 2:37pm, Shashank G. Khandelwal expounded: ++ I'm running a parallel program that needs X runnin ++ all the nodes of our cluster. Previously, people ++ would physically login to the machines. That's ++ just silly with a parallel program, especially ++ when you don't have physical access to

Re: [Siglinux] Trying to start X using a script on many machines

2003-03-04 Thread fnord
Background X whenever you start it up ssh $machine "/usr/bin/X11/X &" "Shashank G. Khandelwal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all, > > Summary: trying to start X using a script on many machines > > I'm going to try and describe this as clearly as > possible. I don't know much about linux, so p

[Siglinux] Trying to start X using a script on many machines

2003-03-04 Thread Shashank G. Khandelwal
Hi all, Summary: trying to start X using a script on many machines I'm going to try and describe this as clearly as possible. I don't know much about linux, so please bear with me. I'm running a parallel program that needs X runnin all the nodes of our cluster. Previously, people would physica