4 ms·

Yes. Because those "tens of thousands" of people have other options available, as has been discussed in this thread. But for people who have physical terminals

Yes. Because those "tens of thousands" of people have other options available, as has been discussed in this thread. But for people who have physical terminals, which I know is exceedingly small, there is no other option. Hence why the behaviour still exists. If time is your only constraint then use a clear screen hot key or write a function and make it a single char, like the following: function r { printf '\033c' } I'm all for modernising the terminal but in this instance there are already other options that solve your needs better than `reset`.

IshKebab 3y ago
[flagged]
- _Algernon_ 3y ago
  Windows has also maintained backwards compatibility to a ridiculous extent, and there have been a bunch of "year of the Windows desktop", so I don't think it is detrimental that Linux does the same.
  - IshKebab 3y ago
    The issue is not about maintaining reasonable backwards compatibility. It's about refusing to fix things and using ridiculous backwards compatibility as an excuse. 1. Even Windows doesn't maintain full backwards compatibility all the way to the 90s, which is what you are advocating. 2. You could even fix this in a backwards compatible way if you wanted!
    - hnlmorg 3y ago
      > 1. Even Windows doesn't maintain full backwards compatibility all the way to the 90s, which is what you are advocating. Oh yes it does! Win32 APIs have been around since the Win95 / NT4 days. And those APIs were themselves based on APIs from Windows 1.0. Then there's those magic files like `CON` that are a remnant of DOS (in fact its even older than that because it comes from CP/M). https://superuser.com/questions/86999/why-cant-i-name-a-folder-or-file-con-in-windows https://superuser.com/questions/86999/why-cant-i-name-a-fold... Also I never said anything about "full backwards compatibility". I just think this specific compatibility is worth preserving because your justifications are weak (by your own admission, you're only arguing about it because you enjoy arguing with people on the internet). > 2. You could even fix this in a backwards compatible way if you wanted! It has been. You objected to those backwards compatible fixes. I've also suggested a way of patching `reset` without relying on buggy usages of `$TERM`. That also apparently isn't good enough for you.
      - IshKebab 3y ago
        > you're only arguing about it because you enjoy arguing with people on the internet Not at all. Firstly I clearly stated a second reason so that isn't the only reason. And secondly, that's orthogonal to whether or not I'm right. If I didn't enjoy debating I wouldn't bother but I would still know that maintaining this delay is idiotic. > It has been. You objected to those backwards compatible fixes. It has not. If I install a default Linux distro, the default configuration is to insert stupid delays everywhere. I have to go out of my way to remove them. That. Is. Dumb.
- hnlmorg 3y ago
  > Yes obviously it can be worked around by tens of thousands of people. We weren't discussing that. This is about the default which is clearly an insane default in 2024. But what you're advocating isn't changing the default, it's changing the purpose of reset. If people want something to clear the scrollback buffer then a new standard, and thus tool too, should be implemented. And in fact there are other ways to clear the scrollback buffer. You're just insistent on complaining that one very specific tool which is intended for a whole other purpose also clears the scrollback buffer slightly quicker... > Rubbish. There are obviously other options: > * Don't upgrade their software (almost certainly the case already). That might not be an option. Some financial systems still use older style null terminals in places. > * Install a version of `reset` that has the delay. Given you're strongly against having to install a version of `reset` that doesn't have the delay, you're hardly in a position to demand other people to install a version that does. > * Add an option to `reset` to add the delay. That's not really practical on most systems because `reset` is just a symlink to `tset` > * Stop using a physical terminal. That's about as unhelpful a suggestion as it comes. > If you're ever wondering why it will never be the year of Linux on the desktop, it's because of attitudes like yours. Please don't make personal attacks. Plus waiting a couple of seconds for a command line terminal to clear when using one specific command has absolutely naff all to do with "the year of desktop Linux". If you bothered to do even the smallest amount of research on me, you'd realise that I'm massively in favour of modernising the command line. I've written a next generation shell that, frankly, leaves most others in the dust. And I'm not working on a terminal emulator that can in-line multimedia and other interactive GUI components. The problem here isn't my attitude, it's that the arguments in favour of changing `reset` are bullshit nonsense that both misunderstand the purpose of `reset` and also risk breaking a whole plethora of hardware because of that misunderstanding of yours.
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    >That might not be an option. Some financial systems still use older style null terminals in places. But how many of those setups require a custom TERM and are unable to install a different package for reset. >Given you're strongly against having to install a version of `reset` that doesn't have the delay, you're hardly in a position to demand other people to install a version that does. The amount of people who need that delay is miniscule compared to the people who don't. Normal users don't need the delay, only exotic setups, which is why the default does not make sense. >That's not really practical on most systems because `reset` is just a symlink to `tset` Then stop doing that. >That's about as unhelpful a suggestion as it comes. Not really. It has practical benefits and avoids down time of having to get it repaired or replaced. >Plus waiting a couple of seconds for a command line terminal to clear when using one specific command has absolutely naff all to do with "the year of desktop Linux". His comment was about your attitude of tailoring the system to a niche group instead of tailoring it to the billions of potential desktop users out there.

IshKebab 3y ago

[flagged]

_Algernon_ 3y ago
Windows has also maintained backwards compatibility to a ridiculous extent, and there have been a bunch of "year of the Windows desktop", so I don't think it is detrimental that Linux does the same.
- IshKebab 3y ago
  The issue is not about maintaining reasonable backwards compatibility. It's about refusing to fix things and using ridiculous backwards compatibility as an excuse. 1. Even Windows doesn't maintain full backwards compatibility all the way to the 90s, which is what you are advocating. 2. You could even fix this in a backwards compatible way if you wanted!
  - hnlmorg 3y ago
    > 1. Even Windows doesn't maintain full backwards compatibility all the way to the 90s, which is what you are advocating. Oh yes it does! Win32 APIs have been around since the Win95 / NT4 days. And those APIs were themselves based on APIs from Windows 1.0. Then there's those magic files like `CON` that are a remnant of DOS (in fact its even older than that because it comes from CP/M). https://superuser.com/questions/86999/why-cant-i-name-a-folder-or-file-con-in-windows https://superuser.com/questions/86999/why-cant-i-name-a-fold... Also I never said anything about "full backwards compatibility". I just think this specific compatibility is worth preserving because your justifications are weak (by your own admission, you're only arguing about it because you enjoy arguing with people on the internet). > 2. You could even fix this in a backwards compatible way if you wanted! It has been. You objected to those backwards compatible fixes. I've also suggested a way of patching `reset` without relying on buggy usages of `$TERM`. That also apparently isn't good enough for you.
    - IshKebab 3y ago
      > you're only arguing about it because you enjoy arguing with people on the internet Not at all. Firstly I clearly stated a second reason so that isn't the only reason. And secondly, that's orthogonal to whether or not I'm right. If I didn't enjoy debating I wouldn't bother but I would still know that maintaining this delay is idiotic. > It has been. You objected to those backwards compatible fixes. It has not. If I install a default Linux distro, the default configuration is to insert stupid delays everywhere. I have to go out of my way to remove them. That. Is. Dumb.
hnlmorg 3y ago
> Yes obviously it can be worked around by tens of thousands of people. We weren't discussing that. This is about the default which is clearly an insane default in 2024. But what you're advocating isn't changing the default, it's changing the purpose of reset. If people want something to clear the scrollback buffer then a new standard, and thus tool too, should be implemented. And in fact there are other ways to clear the scrollback buffer. You're just insistent on complaining that one very specific tool which is intended for a whole other purpose also clears the scrollback buffer slightly quicker... > Rubbish. There are obviously other options: > * Don't upgrade their software (almost certainly the case already). That might not be an option. Some financial systems still use older style null terminals in places. > * Install a version of `reset` that has the delay. Given you're strongly against having to install a version of `reset` that doesn't have the delay, you're hardly in a position to demand other people to install a version that does. > * Add an option to `reset` to add the delay. That's not really practical on most systems because `reset` is just a symlink to `tset` > * Stop using a physical terminal. That's about as unhelpful a suggestion as it comes. > If you're ever wondering why it will never be the year of Linux on the desktop, it's because of attitudes like yours. Please don't make personal attacks. Plus waiting a couple of seconds for a command line terminal to clear when using one specific command has absolutely naff all to do with "the year of desktop Linux". If you bothered to do even the smallest amount of research on me, you'd realise that I'm massively in favour of modernising the command line. I've written a next generation shell that, frankly, leaves most others in the dust. And I'm not working on a terminal emulator that can in-line multimedia and other interactive GUI components. The problem here isn't my attitude, it's that the arguments in favour of changing `reset` are bullshit nonsense that both misunderstand the purpose of `reset` and also risk breaking a whole plethora of hardware because of that misunderstanding of yours.
- charcircuit 3y ago
  >That might not be an option. Some financial systems still use older style null terminals in places. But how many of those setups require a custom TERM and are unable to install a different package for reset. >Given you're strongly against having to install a version of `reset` that doesn't have the delay, you're hardly in a position to demand other people to install a version that does. The amount of people who need that delay is miniscule compared to the people who don't. Normal users don't need the delay, only exotic setups, which is why the default does not make sense. >That's not really practical on most systems because `reset` is just a symlink to `tset` Then stop doing that. >That's about as unhelpful a suggestion as it comes. Not really. It has practical benefits and avoids down time of having to get it repaired or replaced. >Plus waiting a couple of seconds for a command line terminal to clear when using one specific command has absolutely naff all to do with "the year of desktop Linux". His comment was about your attitude of tailoring the system to a niche group instead of tailoring it to the billions of potential desktop users out there.