Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

St – simple terminal

st.suckless.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 88 posts

Re: St – simple terminal

#11

Post by stormbrew »

hoeppnertill wrote: post #4
stormbrew wrote: post #3

> Some random program complains that st is unknown/not recognised/unsupported/whatever! I really wish there was a better way to deal with this (I have the same problem with rxvt-unicode-256color). I'm obviously not going to make install a graphical terminal emulator on some random server I'm logging into.

tic -s st.info or setting your TERM variable should help.

I meant the distribution problem of getting the file to the server. I grant that it's a petty annoyance, but it is still an annoying thing. And logging into a new server always carries with it the question of whether it's worth fixing it permanently when you barely use it.

For the machines I regularly use I have terminfo files in my dotfiles git repo.

Re: St – simple terminal

#12

Post by e12e »

AceJohnny2 wrote: post #5

I like suckless. I use some of their tools within my Awesome(WM) sessions. However, I don't see the point of St. There are dozens of other graphical terminal emulators that were created with the exact same goal: "Xterm's codebase sucks, we can do better". FWIW, I've (currently[1]) settled on ROXTerm, which (on Debian and Ubuntu) comes in GTK2 and GTK3 variants. I use Tmux within it. It does FreeType and FontConfig fo…

I've been using a few - in the end I landed on sakura: http://www.pleyades.net/david/projects/sakura

I don't quite remember why I ended up moving from urxvt to sakura (and not eg: roxterm) -- but I think it was a combination of it being light (enough), easy to set up without any kind of window decorations, as well as a sane way to pick and choose fonts. With the current gtk ~/.conf-scheme it has a nice ini-like config file, and I can easily have different font preferences on my laptop, my netbook and my desktop (all different screen sizes and different PPI).

FFW I use a spartan xmonad setup, and typically run one, or a handful of terminal windows, each with their own gnu screen instance (typically one local, and a few remote screen instances over ssh. Sometimes I'll have more than one view/windows to one screen session -- and sometimes I might have a screen for a chroot or local vm/container of some sort).

Re: St – simple terminal

#13

Post by RobinBlk7 »

Zardoz84 wrote: post #6

I use Konsole and yaquake always. Tabs, colors, profiles (I just have one for neovim), nice font rendering, split windows, copy&paste from clipboard... Apart, Windows needs a good terminal. Console2 and ConEmu, not end to work fine... I get strange issues with colors every time that I connect to ssh against a GNU/Linux machine and open vim.

ConEmu works fine with colors. Your ssh client does not...

Re: St – simple terminal

#14

Post by lsiebert »

AceJohnny2 wrote: post #5

I like suckless. I use some of their tools within my Awesome(WM) sessions. However, I don't see the point of St. There are dozens of other graphical terminal emulators that were created with the exact same goal: "Xterm's codebase sucks, we can do better". FWIW, I've (currently[1]) settled on ROXTerm, which (on Debian and Ubuntu) comes in GTK2 and GTK3 variants. I use Tmux within it. It does FreeType and FontConfig fo…

I like roxterm, but I recently switched to xfce's terminal, which lets me load it without a menu bar, (I like having more vertical space).

More options are good.

Re: St – simple terminal

#15

Post by [deleted] »

e12e wrote: post #12
AceJohnny2 wrote: post #5

I like suckless. I use some of their tools within my Awesome(WM) sessions. However, I don't see the point of St. There are dozens of other graphical terminal emulators that were created with the exact same goal: "Xterm's codebase sucks, we can do better". FWIW, I've (currently[1]) settled on ROXTerm, which (on Debian and Ubuntu) comes in GTK2 and GTK3 variants. I use Tmux within it. It does FreeType and FontConfig fo…

I've been using a few - in the end I landed on sakura: http://www.pleyades.net/david/projects/sakura I don't quite remember why I ended up moving from urxvt to sakura (and not eg: roxterm) -- but I think it was a combination of it being light (enough), easy to set up without any kind of window decorations, as well as a sane way to pick and choose fonts. With the current gtk ~/.conf-scheme it has a nice ini-like confi…

[deleted]

Re: St – simple terminal

#16

Post by 1_player »

AceJohnny2 wrote: post #5

I like suckless. I use some of their tools within my Awesome(WM) sessions. However, I don't see the point of St. There are dozens of other graphical terminal emulators that were created with the exact same goal: "Xterm's codebase sucks, we can do better". FWIW, I've (currently[1]) settled on ROXTerm, which (on Debian and Ubuntu) comes in GTK2 and GTK3 variants. I use Tmux within it. It does FreeType and FontConfig fo…

I've used gnome-terminal, sakura and now I'm using terminator: http://gnometerminator.blogspot.co.uk/p/introduction.html

The main difference with the other terminal emulators is that I can easily do horizontal and vertical window splits.

Many use screen or tmux for that but I find them too limiting, especially in their scrollback implementation.

Re: St – simple terminal

#17

Post by boomlinde »

klez wrote: post #9
otikik wrote: post #7

> xterm is bloated and unmaintainable. [...] It has over 65K lines of code and emulates obscure and obsolete terminals you will never need. The popular alternative, rxvt has only 32K lines of code. This is just too much for something as simple as a terminal emulator; it’s yet another example of code complexity. Ok, I am interested. > How do I scroll back up? > - Using a terminal multiplexer [shows tmux example] Emm..…

I think the point is: do one thing and do it well. In this view, I guess it's not the terminal's duty to do multiplexing, scrolling etc. Tmux is meant to do the job, so its codebase size should not be added together with st's. They're separate software, each doing its thing and doing it well, an approach completely opposite to that of other software (e.g. emacs) that do lots of things.

I'm not sure in what meaningful sense of the word tmux isn't also a terminal emulator, thus doing more than it should, if I follow your reasoning all right.

Re: St – simple terminal

#18

Post by erikb »

suckless sounds quite like a good name. I'm currently also working on some terminal style I/O and I can totally understand why there are programs with >30k lines of code just for being a terminal emulator. terminal communication is not really standardized. It has grown since a time where "computer" meant a person who calculates things. So I'm not sure it St could arrive at a stable state without also having a few thousands lines more than it would like to have.

But what is wrong with Gnome-Terminal? For me it works well enough out of the box. I literally didn't do anything beside increasing the scroll buffer and haven't run into enough troubles yet to switch.

Re: St – simple terminal

#19

Post by klez »

boomlinde wrote: post #17
klez wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point is: do one thing and do it well. In this view, I guess it's not the terminal's duty to do multiplexing, scrolling etc. Tmux is meant to do the job, so its codebase size should not be added together with st's. They're separate software, each doing its thing and doing it well, an approach completely opposite to that of other software (e.g. emacs) that do lots of things.

I'm not sure in what meaningful sense of the word tmux isn't also a terminal emulator, thus doing more than it should, if I follow your reasoning all right.

Fair enough, in a way, but I'd say you can't launch it stand-alone inside an X session without using another terminal emulator (st, xtrem, whatever).

Re: St – simple terminal

#20

Post by Argorak »

erikb wrote: post #18

suckless sounds quite like a good name. I'm currently also working on some terminal style I/O and I can totally understand why there are programs with >30k lines of code just for being a terminal emulator. terminal communication is not really standardized. It has grown since a time where "computer" meant a person who calculates things. So I'm not sure it St could arrive at a stable state without also having a few tho…

The source directory of libtsm, which only does the state handling for an abstract screen, is already ~11k without tests, so 30k doesn't surprise me.

http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/kmscon/libtsm/

Post reply on HN