Why do people care so much about terminal emulators and their supposed "bloat" and "complexity"?
I care about functionality. Stuff like true color support helps reduce strain to the eyes.
St – A simple terminal implementation for X
31–40 of 223 posts
Re: St – A simple terminal implementation for X
#32Interesting. I've been wanting a better terminal for some time. rxvt is super buggy, especially with clickable URLs. xfce4-terminal is better but select-to-copy is flaky and doesn't always copy the text I select. I really wanted st to work for me but something is wrong with the character sizing when using Source Code Pro (17pt) as the font. I installed this on my Arch laptop (a hidpi ThinkPad T460s) and something is…
> rxvt is super buggy
Which one are you using? AFAIK urxvt is the only maintained fork. I could be wrong.
> I would report this to the author but I don't see any way to do so.
Re: St – A simple terminal implementation for X
#33I used st for a good year and it worked really well! I've switched recently for features like the ability to change the font size without recompiling, etc. Despite its spartan feature set, st is quite usable.
Given their focus on being lean, it's more like SPARTAN!! feature set rather than just a plain spartan feature set. :)
Re: St – A simple terminal implementation for X
#34I find terminal emulators on Linux to be woefully inadequate after getting used to iTerm2 on OS X. Can anyone recommend a Linux terminal emulator that even comes close in terms of features and performance?
Re: St – A simple terminal implementation for X
#35I don't use C for a couple of years and I see this: void ( handler[LASTEvent]) (XEvent ) = { [ButtonPress] = buttonpress, [ConfigureRequest] = configurerequest, [DestroyNotify] = destroynotify, [EnterNotify] = enternotify, [LeaveNotify] = leavenotify, [KeyPress] = keypress, [MappingNotify] = mappingnotify, [MapRequest] = maprequest, [PropertyNotify] = propertynotify, [UnmapNotify] = unmapnotify }; What's this feature…
Designated initializers. It's in C99.
Thanks. Oddly not in the C++ standard:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/18731707/why-does-c11-not...
Re: St – A simple terminal implementation for X
#36I find terminal emulators on Linux to be woefully inadequate after getting used to iTerm2 on OS X. Can anyone recommend a Linux terminal emulator that even comes close in terms of features and performance?
What features do you need in iTerm2 that you find lacking in the Linux terminal emulators you've tried?
Re: St – A simple terminal implementation for X
#37I like the principles behind its design, but not supporting scrollback and saying "that functionality should be provided by tmux or something similar" is baffling when it's done in the name of removing bloat and complexity. Not everybody wishes to use a terminal multiplexer in all cases, either.
I can't believe they added serial line support and not scrollback. If you're going to claim bloat, serial line support definitely ranks lower on priority than scrollback.
My first thought, as well.
Re: St – A simple terminal implementation for X
#38Recompiling software to change options is utterly and totally ridiculous
Re: St – A simple terminal implementation for X
#39This is my favourite terminal. I have it configured to run tmux, and couldn't be happier. Lightning-fast, stable as can be, it gets out of my way and lets me work.
Re: St – A simple terminal implementation for X
#40I find terminal emulators on Linux to be woefully inadequate after getting used to iTerm2 on OS X. Can anyone recommend a Linux terminal emulator that even comes close in terms of features and performance?
I've been happy with gnome-terminal :)