X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <17393e3e0703021032uf7ff36fidc85bbb4e6234e3@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 13:32:47 -0500 From: "Matt Wozniski" To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: script problem In-Reply-To: <002301c75cf7$db499aa0$020aa8c0@DFW5RB41> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <490598 DOT 58712 DOT qm AT web37206 DOT mail DOT mud DOT yahoo DOT com> <002301c75cf7$db499aa0$020aa8c0 AT DFW5RB41> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com On 3/2/07, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: > Actually the advantages tend to go the other way at this point. The Cygwin > non-X rxvt is no longer being actively maintained upstream. rxvt-unicode is > being actively maintained both upstream and here in Cygwinton. It looks > nicer (fonts appear to get antialising), there's bugfixes (though I've only > ever run into one minor bug on the non-X rxvt), and has some Unicode/UTF-8 > support if that's important to you. And, xterm has extremely good unicode support. If unicode support is important to you, then right now xterm provides more support than the cygwin rxvt-unicode. ~Matt -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/