They were in fact, made well aware of them the e n t i r e time. They weren't "blind-sided" by any of the criticism or complaints. It was in Early Access, and had access to the entire communities feedback, through every step of the process. Below Zero does not break any new ground or try to do anything that hasn't been attempted before, and done, better, with more success.Īnd it wasn't striking out blindly, on its own. They already proved proof-of-concept for underwater survival exploration with Subnautica, and survival games, voiced protagonists, and stories, none of which are new or unique. It didn't break new ground, because it rode in on Subnautica's coattails, stood on its shoulders, and hoisted up by its praises, mechanics, solid gameplay loop, and established built-in fanbase and community. It didn't blindly strike out on its own path only to find itself met with a terrible fate. It wasn't boldly going where no one had gone before. I can tell you the reasons for me, personally, that drag Below Zero into the category of "very, very bad"īecause you see, it isn't like Below Zero disappointed or didn't impress through any innocent fault of its own. Well, you may have better luck asking those questions on the Below Zero forum, but what I can do for ya, at least, is to answer your question myself here. I adored Hellsing for what it was in all its glory and for all its flaws. How's it going? Are you a fan of the original Hellsing, the Ultimate, or both? =) I haven't seen the reboot, can't say if it's good or bad, but then again never interested in it. So if you're not actually using screen/tmux from within (for example) a raw Linux terminal, but rather from a GUI-based terminal, then I recommend giving ctrl-s a try it's made zipping about in tmux and screen a lot more convenient for me.Whenever i ask why BZ is so "very very bad" i get silence and the negative reviews aren't any insightful either. I'm sure some GUI terminal program somewhere still has that flow-control functionality enabled by default, but I haven't actually bumped into one the gui terminal programs I've tried all seem to completely ignore it by default, which makes that convenient key combination available for more productive uses. Of course, the reason that nothing is on ctrl-s is that in the terminal, it traditionally is used for flow control, dating back to the days before paging tools like more and less were common. nothing the vast majority of people use today is on ctrl-s! Doesn't override or add escaping-requirements to any other commonly-used terminal functionality.(I often do this using a local tmux with panes containing ssh sessions to remote servers, in which I run screen) Or hey, for running screen inside a tmux pane without needing to worry about escaping prefix characters to control the embedded screen instance. Frees up ctrl-a for emacs-style "back to beginning of line" or vim-style "increment number" operations.
Revisiting this answer with a newer solution that allows for toggling the mode by hitting F12, and using a caption to indicate mode. I've found hitting a double tick is simple, and a good trade off for most screen operations. This will swap the escape to Ctrl-O for when I'm doing cut-and-paste operations. bindkey -d -k F1 escape ^O^O # bound to F11īindkey -d -k F2 escape \140\140 # bound to F12 For this reason I bindkey F11/ F12 to switch between my escape character. The issue with using backtick in a Unix environment is when attempting to cut-and-paste shell/Perl script code. It's very quick one handed gesture to (backtick)1, (backtick)2, (backtick)3 to swap between windows. This allows me to reserve screen 0 for what I consider persistent or reference windows. I rebind 's' to screen 1 so that new sessions are created from left to right on the keyboard starting at 1. The Ctrl-A complicates both Emacs and command line editing for me within Zsh, and I dislike Ctrl-O (2 hand operations for most screen actions). My default escape is set to \140\140, which is backtick.
0 kommentar(er)
