Locking up my terminal

belgariontheking

I had a post written up asking why my screen locks up when I hit CTRL-S in vim but a little troubleshooting and googling reveals that (in ksh) CTRL-S halts output to the screen (no matter what program is running on top of it, apparently), which can be released by hitting CTRL-Q. So I guess the lesson is "Don't hit CTRL-S in ksh. Matter of fact, don't use ksh."

I wish I could default this account to bash, but it's a functional account and some of my coworkers actually like ksh. Savages.

Blame Teletype, not Korn.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_flow_control[/url]

belgariontheking

Curses! Just when I wanted another reason to hate ksh, I get thrown this curveball.

skippy

Happens in bash as well.... except for me cause I remapped <C-S> in vim to do something else.

:map <C-S> doSomethingElse

tgape

@belgariontheking said:

I had a post written up asking why my screen locks up when I hit CTRL-S in vim but a little troubleshooting and googling reveals that (in ksh) CTRL-S halts output to the screen (no matter what program is running on top of it, apparently), which can be released by hitting CTRL-Q. So I guess the lesson is "Don't hit CTRL-S in ksh. Matter of fact, don't use ksh."
I wish I could default this account to bash, but it's a functional account and some of my coworkers actually like ksh. Savages.

First, while it sounds like you might have found the answer by now, I haven't seen a post which indicates that you have for certain, so... you are probably looking for the 'stty' command. Specifically, 'stty stop undef'.

Second, have you and your coworkers looked at zsh in the past 8 years? It can be set up to almost act exactly like ksh, but has quite a few more features. IMHO, it's competitive with bash, but can be much more ksh compatible than bash can be (as that's not apparently a priority for the bash folk.)

bstorer

@tgape said:

but can be much more ksh compatible than bash can be (as that's not apparently a priority for the bash folk.)

That's because the bash folk have the good sense to avoid ksh like the plague.

tgape

@bstorer said:

@tgape said:
but can be much more ksh compatible than bash can be (as that's not apparently a priority for the bash folk.)
That's because the bash folk have the good sense to avoid ksh like the plague.

I'm specifically not addressing whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. I'm merely point out options.