recommend a lightweight terminal

ebirtaid · 2008-01-08 17:18:21

axion419 wrote:

i suggest sakura. Cant say how light it is compared to others, but it seems fast and pretty.
http://www.pleyades.net/david/sakura.php

How does one run urxvt in daemon mode? and what are the other launch options."Usually I run urxvt through urxvt{d,c}. Just launch the daemon in your xinitrc and then attatch the clients. " what are the d,c?
i am running openbox currently, how would i launch it in urxvt, so that i can close the terminal and close x? If thats what you are talking about.

urxvtd is the daemon, you run urxvtc to run the client. and you cant run openbox from a terminal the way that you are suggesting; if you want to close the terminal to kill x put urxvt in your .xinitrc then use startx

Xilon · 2008-01-09 06:47:41

phrakture wrote:

urxvt is nice, but for speed and support xterm wins. Personally, I use urxvt only for the url matcher extension, which makes my life awesome!

+1

I wish xterm had matcher functionality, I'd switch immediately.

pressh · 2008-01-16 16:50:01

axion419 wrote:

i suggest sakura. Cant say how light it is compared to others, but it seems fast and pretty.
http://www.pleyades.net/david/sakura.php

nice

Davigetto · 2008-01-16 17:16:05

If you use KDE, i would recommend Yakuake. Is a great and pretty and useful and accessible terminal. If you use GTK, i could recommend Tilda.

But if you need a good and simple terminal, maybe "terminal" is a good choice.

Zer0 · 2008-01-16 19:13:45

Wow.. XFCE's Terminal is nice! I might give my native konsole the boot!

drakosha · 2008-01-16 21:58:41

take a look at roxterm... it's lighter imho than XFCE's Terminal

axion419 · 2008-02-06 17:53:42

not to drag this post back up (but i am ) but i was looking for a good light terminal, and since sakura is in aur and not extra or community, i wanted something else i could install right from pacman. So i went with trusty urxvt. I remember asking about running it as a daemon, so i checked its man page and everything. Then i noticed that it says that with urxvt, plus increased scroll buffer, you are using like 10mb's a terminal, thats crazy.

Rxvt-unicode uses gobs of memory, how can I reduce that?

Rxvt-unicode tries to obey the rule of not charging you for something you don't use. One thing you should try is to configure out all settings that you don't need, for example, Xft support is a resource hog by design, when used. Compiling it out ensures that no Xft font will be loaded accidentally when rxvt-unicode tries to find a font for your characters.

Also, many people (me included) like large windows and even larger scrollback buffers: Without "--enable-unicode3", rxvt-unicode will use 6 bytes per screen cell. For a 160x?? window this amounts to almost a kilobyte per line. A scrollback buffer of 10000 lines will then (if full) use 10 Megabytes of memory. With "--enable-unicode3" it gets worse, as rxvt-unicode then uses 8 bytes per screen cell.

Since i dont use tabs, i dont really need unicode support and everything, looks like xterm might be the best terminal?

pressh · 2008-02-06 18:07:28

axion419 wrote:

sakura is in aur and not extra or community, i wanted something else i could install right from pacman.

yes, 2 bad sakura is not in [community]

Make sure you vote for it, I may move it if it gets a bit more popular.

Gilneas · 2008-02-06 19:08:56

Of all the terminals I have tried, aterm starts up the fastest. And I like its transparency support (I have a nice wallpaper to go with it). I tinted it a bit myself with mtpaint so I don't have to enable that setting (true tinting takes readjustment time).
Anything that comes after that, from UTF to tabbing to hundreds of colors, I don't really care about.

Mr Green · 2008-02-06 21:06:12

xterm

marxav · 2008-08-08 23:13:30

phrakture wrote:

urxvt is nice, but for speed and support xterm wins. Personally, I use urxvt only for the url matcher extension, which makes my life awesome!

Me too, but I discovered tonight that roxterm handles url not too bad. It's a two step process, right click then select to open url... if only urls were underlined.

skottish · 2008-08-08 23:20:53

I just switched to sakura today from Terminal (XFCE) and I'm very happy with it. No more XFCE programs on my system = No more runaway processes = Yippee!

marxav · 2008-08-08 23:33:20

skottish wrote:

I just switched to sakura today from Terminal (XFCE) and I'm very happy with it. No more XFCE programs on my system = No more runaway processes = Yippee!

What about url handling?

skottish · 2008-08-08 23:36:12

marxav wrote:

skottish wrote:
I just switched to sakura today from Terminal (XFCE) and I'm very happy with it. No more XFCE programs on my system = No more runaway processes = Yippee!
What about url handling?

It works great. It's the same as some others -- right click and open URL.

theringmaster · 2008-08-09 02:04:24

lxterminal is pretty simple, with no unwanted deps.

freakcode · 2008-08-09 02:29:59

Nothing is lighter and faster than Xterm

Xilon wrote:

phrakture wrote:
urxvt is nice, but for speed and support xterm wins. Personally, I use urxvt only for the url matcher extension, which makes my life awesome!
+1
I wish xterm had matcher functionality, I'd switch immediately.

You can make xterm match URLs and emails. But it can't launch browser from single click.

Try this on .Xdefaults:

! Matches selection for URLs and emails when double-click
XTerm*charClass: 33:48,37-38:48,45-47:48,64:48,58:48,126:48,61:48,63:48,43:48,35:38
XTerm*trimSelection: true

For more .Xdefaults godness, see this thread: http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=404264

Last edited by freakcode (2008-08-09 02:37:32)

marxav · 2008-08-09 13:38:14

freakcode wrote:

Nothing is lighter and faster than Xterm
Try this on .Xdefaults:
! Matches selection for URLs and emails when double-click
XTerm*charClass: 33:48,37-38:48,45-47:48,64:48,58:48,126:48,61:48,63:48,43:48,35:38
XTerm*trimSelection: true
For more .Xdefaults godness, see this thread: http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=404264

Tried that. Did xrdb .Xdefaults, does not seem to work.:(

ralvez · 2008-08-09 15:09:38

A simple option is to open konqueror or dolpin and press F4. Alternatively I like yaquake.

R.

froli · 2008-08-09 17:45:35

Terminator is quite good too

pogeymanz · 2008-08-09 20:53:11

I like terminator a lot, but it's not nearly as lightweigh as the others being discussed. At least by default.

I have two questions. What exactly does unicode do/mean? And when do you need/want xft support?

dunc · 2008-08-10 20:12:13

pogeymanz wrote:

What exactly does unicode do/mean?

In simple terms, it's a way of turning the characters you see on screen into numbers the computer can deal with (or, rather, vice-versa). You're probably aware of ASCII and ANSI, but they're designed for the Roman alphabet as it's used in English. There's no standard extension for accents and other modifications used in other languages, and if you want to use, say, Greek or Cyrillic, you need an entirely different system. Both of which make things awkward and potentially confusing for both users and programs.

And that's before we even begin to consider syllabic "alphabets" and phonetic scripts which potentially require more characters than can be represented by an 8-bit system in the first place.

From the Wikipedia page:

Unicode has the explicit aim of transcending the limitations of traditional character encodings, such as those defined by the ISO 8859 standard, which find wide usage in various countries of the world but remain largely incompatible with each other. Many traditional character encodings share a common problem in that they allow bilingual computer processing (usually using Roman characters and the local script) but not multilingual computer processing (computer processing of arbitrary scripts mixed with each other).
...
Unicode covers almost all scripts (writing systems) in current use today.
Although 75 scripts (covering alphabets, abugidas and syllabaries) are included in the latest version of Unicode, there remain more still awaiting encoding, particularly some used in historical, liturgical and academic contexts. Further additions of characters to the already-encoded scripts, as well as symbols, in particular for mathematics and music (in the form of notes and rhythmic symbols), also occur.

Unicode brings everything under one roof, making characters from many different scripts encodable using the same system, and removes these ambiguities.

pogeymanz wrote:

And when do you need/want xft support?

When you want to use TTF, OTF, Type 1, etc. fonts. You'll also get antialiasing and hinting if you have them enabled.

ondope · 2008-08-23 09:11:11

Sakura is now in community

moljac024 · 2008-08-23 09:55:14

urxvt wins for supporting true transparency! Comes in handy when using the terminal in a overlapping window manager.

tinhtruong · 2009-01-10 13:31:20

finferflu wrote:

To be honest gnome-terminal doesn't seem that heavy to me. I like it because it's quite easy to configure, it has a decent menu, and also a decent font display. For everything else in a terminal I use GNU Screen.

But with the following dependencies, I dont consider it lightweight

libart-lgpl-2.3.20-1  libgnomecanvas-2.20.1.1-2  
libbonobo-2.24.0-1  libgnome-2.24.1-1  libbonoboui-2.24.0-1  
gnome-keyring-2.24.1-1  libgnomeui-2.24.0-1  
gnome-terminal-2.24.2-1

Wintervenom · 2009-01-10 15:27:33

XTerm is indeed the fastest/lightweight. GNOME Terminal, Konsole/Yakuake, XFCE Terminal, and anything using VTE are slow when maximized and cause CPU spikes whenever the text scrolls down [on slow processors]. URxvt is the second-fastest.

Last edited by Wintervenom (2009-08-03 14:42:07)

Arch Linux

#26 2008-01-08 17:18:21

Re: recommend a lightweight terminal

#27 2008-01-09 06:47:41

Re: recommend a lightweight terminal

#28 2008-01-16 16:50:01

Re: recommend a lightweight terminal

#29 2008-01-16 17:16:05

Re: recommend a lightweight terminal

#30 2008-01-16 19:13:45

Re: recommend a lightweight terminal

#31 2008-01-16 21:58:41

Re: recommend a lightweight terminal

#32 2008-02-06 17:53:42

Re: recommend a lightweight terminal

#33 2008-02-06 18:07:28

Re: recommend a lightweight terminal

#34 2008-02-06 19:08:56

Re: recommend a lightweight terminal

#35 2008-02-06 21:06:12

Re: recommend a lightweight terminal

#36 2008-08-08 23:13:30

Re: recommend a lightweight terminal

#37 2008-08-08 23:20:53

Re: recommend a lightweight terminal

#38 2008-08-08 23:33:20

Re: recommend a lightweight terminal

#39 2008-08-08 23:36:12

Re: recommend a lightweight terminal

#40 2008-08-09 02:04:24

Re: recommend a lightweight terminal

#41 2008-08-09 02:29:59

Re: recommend a lightweight terminal

#42 2008-08-09 13:38:14

Re: recommend a lightweight terminal

#43 2008-08-09 15:09:38

Re: recommend a lightweight terminal

#44 2008-08-09 17:45:35

Re: recommend a lightweight terminal

#45 2008-08-09 20:53:11

Re: recommend a lightweight terminal

#46 2008-08-10 20:12:13

Re: recommend a lightweight terminal

#47 2008-08-23 09:11:11

Re: recommend a lightweight terminal

#48 2008-08-23 09:55:14

Re: recommend a lightweight terminal

#49 2009-01-10 13:31:20

Re: recommend a lightweight terminal

#50 2009-01-10 15:27:33

Re: recommend a lightweight terminal

Board footer