new terminal

Misbah · 2008-05-04 06:27:16

deleted

Last edited by Misbah (2012-02-14 04:43:05)

GGLucas · 2008-05-04 09:12:17

.

Last edited by GGLucas (2022-06-24 09:09:41)

pogeymanz · 2008-05-04 14:25:00

Boy, I used to think I was a minimalist until I came to the Arch forums!

You might hate it, but I really like xfce4-terminal. It has quite a few ways to customise it through its menus, and it has GUI-style tabs. Although, I guess it might be too "bloated" for most Archers.

finferflu · 2008-05-04 14:30:38

I use gnome-terminal on any WM, even the lightest one. It just supports everything I need, and I can't be bothered to tweak terminal settings so much when I can just have them without tweaking. I have 80GB of HD, more than enough to install some Gnome deps (and actually I always end up installing Gnome, using it from time to time).

N30N · 2008-05-04 15:06:24

+1 for urxvt it supports all the features you listed.

GGLucas wrote:

urxvt has tabs through a perl extension that you can load (urxvt.perl-ext-common: default,tabbed), although it's text-based, you just get a line above your terminal with a new button and a list of numbered tabs, I like it better than gui-based tabs, though.

You can launch it with urxvt-tabbed for a gtk2 tabbed interface.

patroclo7 · 2008-05-04 15:27:56

I have been using mrxvt for a long time, and is actually fine, with a readable config file (no ~/.Xdefaults) and lots of features. It is actually lighter on resouces of urxvt.
The thing I missed most was the support for double-clickable links, but you can configure mrxvt to select links with a double click and then have a context menu to launch a browser with that link.

dav7 · 2008-05-04 15:59:43

Another urxvt fan here. urxvtd/urxvtc actually: urxvt has a great option that lets you run a daemon once; this is the terminal itself, and is loaded into memory ONCE. When you want a terminal, you run urxvtc, and it connects to the socket and requests a new terminal for you. It's fairly memory efficient and since all the terminal memory is in the one process I'm sure... it just runs better. Somehow. Starting new terminals for one is definately nice and fast

But seriously, urxvt looks really, really nice. If you want candy, urxvt will probably fulfill that need: I (naturally) have urxvt set to simulate transparency (which works pretty well) and since, I have a wallpaper featuring a waterfall, I've set urxvt's tint color to be an ever-so-slight hint of nice, dark blue. It tones in with the background really nicely and looks... great.

Plus, urxvt has strong support for Unicode which makes creating/using "cool"-looking textmode interfaces all that much niceer because the terminal supports the Unicode range and I can use the box drawing characters

-dav7

Tenken · 2008-05-04 18:54:34

I use gnome-terminal on any WM, even the lightest one. It just supports everything I need, and I can't be bothered to tweak terminal settings so much when I can just have them without tweaking. I have 80GB of HD, more than enough to install some Gnome deps (and actually I always end up installing Gnome, using it from time to time).

Have you tried sakura? I find it to be comparable to the gnome terminal, and with only one dependency. I use it with my Openbox setup and it works great.

Convergence · 2008-10-09 02:46:16

dav7 wrote:

Another urxvt fan here. urxvtd/urxvtc actually: urxvt has a great option that lets you run a daemon once; this is the terminal itself, and is loaded into memory ONCE. When you want a terminal, you run urxvtc, and it connects to the socket and requests a new terminal for you. It's fairly memory efficient and since all the terminal memory is in the one process I'm sure... it just runs better. Somehow. Starting new terminals for one is definately nice and fast
But seriously, urxvt looks really, really nice. If you want candy, urxvt will probably fulfill that need: I (naturally) have urxvt set to simulate transparency (which works pretty well) and since, I have a wallpaper featuring a waterfall, I've set urxvt's tint color to be an ever-so-slight hint of nice, dark blue. It tones in with the background really nicely and looks... great.
Plus, urxvt has strong support for Unicode which makes creating/using "cool"-looking textmode interfaces all that much niceer because the terminal supports the Unicode range and I can use the box drawing characters
-dav7

Would you post your config? Sorry, I know this is an old thread, but I'm just now realizing that I can't handle mrxvt's lack of unicode, in spite of the fact that I've found a sample mrxvt config on the net that is amazing. Wish I could reuse it for urxvt.

Tenken: the only reason I would not recommend sakura, or any vte based emulator is that they are very slooow. Try this:

 time seq -f 'teeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeest %g' 1000000

on sakura, then an rxvt based terminal. The difference may not be noticeable to you, but on this old bean counter, it's VERY noticeable. Especially when scrolling through man pages full screen (any scrolling with lots of text on the screen at once)

arch0r · 2008-10-09 10:41:17

Tenken wrote:

I use gnome-terminal on any WM, even the lightest one. It just supports everything I need, and I can't be bothered to tweak terminal settings so much when I can just have them without tweaking. I have 80GB of HD, more than enough to install some Gnome deps (and actually I always end up installing Gnome, using it from time to time).
Have you tried sakura? I find it to be comparable to the gnome terminal, and with only one dependency. I use it with my Openbox setup and it works great.

+1

moljac024 · 2008-10-09 11:11:51

arch0r wrote:

Tenken wrote:
I use gnome-terminal on any WM, even the lightest one. It just supports everything I need, and I can't be bothered to tweak terminal settings so much when I can just have them without tweaking. I have 80GB of HD, more than enough to install some Gnome deps (and actually I always end up installing Gnome, using it from time to time).
Have you tried sakura? I find it to be comparable to the gnome terminal, and with only one dependency. I use it with my Openbox setup and it works great.
+1

-1

Gnome-terminal all the way dudes!

RobbeR49 · 2008-10-09 13:35:58

Convergence wrote:

the only reason I would not recommend sakura, or any vte based emulator is that they are very slooow.

The vte based terminals I've used seem quicker to me. I've never taken the time to try and measure the difference, but it seems they are faster at rendering anti-aliased text than the rxvt based terminals. Without anti-aliasing I wouldn't doubt it is probably the other way around.

dav7 · 2008-10-09 14:07:32

Convergence wrote:

Would you post your config? Sorry, I know this is an old thread, but I'm just now realizing that I can't handle mrxvt's lack of unicode, in spite of the fact that I've found a sample mrxvt config on the net that is amazing. Wish I could reuse it for urxvt.

Well, to use urxvtd is very simple: run urxvtd once, then run urxvtc whenever you'd otherwise run urxvt.
Some tips:
- configure urxvtd to start when you launch X, but use something like 'killall urxvtd; urxvtd' to make sure you don't have stray copies of the daemon hanging around if you restart X for whatever reason. If the kill fails killall will just print an error you're likely not going to see unless you have really fast vision and a system that starts X a little slowly.
- urxvtd packs all the terminals you have open into one memory image, so all your open terminals are effectively one binary. However, urxvtd doesn't use fork()/threading, and since you aren't likely to heavily use two terminals at once anyway, this isn't 98% of the time a problem, but there is the issue that if you "crash" one terminal, you've crashed all of them. This might be caused by running a very, very, VERY chatty program (eg something that outputs as many lines per second as your hardware can handle) will likely cause all your other terminals to go a bit silent. Also, because of a bug in the entire urxvt "suite", opening a new terminal with a 0x0 geometry with crash the terminal, or set of terminals, completely.
- NOTE that where you'd use "urxvt &" to start a copy of urxvt in the background, you do not need to use this syntax with urxvtc; the urxvtc program will communicate with urxvtd, ask for a new terminal window, then immediately quit. Therefore, "urxvtc" by itself is just fine, and will behave in an exactly equivalent manner to "urxvt &". It's helpful to note/know this, though, for situations where a non-backgrounded terminal would be optimal - in those cases use normal urxvt (which works fine alongside the daemon - it doesn't even know it's there, since it doesn't need to).

Right.

Transparency is extremely easy. There are two modes: pseudo-transparency, or fake transparency, or true, 32-bit color transparency. The first works on any video card with a non-completely-insane amount of video RAM (say, 16MB), and if you have more than that, say 64MB or 128MB, pseudo transparency will fly on your system. The second mode requires composite support, and while a huge host of cards support composite (yours probably does, and if you use xcompmgr or compiz fusion you're using compositing) not many cards run all that fast with it enabled - for example, where you see complaints of slow scrolling in firefox, you're seeing someone who doesn't have the best video card (or configuration, which can matter a lot too).

Now for the reason why true transparency is awesomer than pseudo-transparency: pseudo takes your root window's pixmap (bitmap), modifies (darkens, lightens, blurs, etc) it by any amount you specify, then figures out where the terminal window is on the screen and maps the modified area of the root pixmap so it's positioned such that the urxvt window is transparent. The problem with this though is that since pseudo works off the root window pixmap alone and not a "picture" of your desktop's windows, if you have a window underneath a terminal window it'll be "invisible". Sounds crazily funky with words but I have a screenshot below so don't fret.

True transparency, on the other hand, uses compositing to, in real time, map your root window, get a picture of all the windows underneath, and use this data for its fun darkening/lightening/blur work. This mode looks approximately 45728596243987.99% better than pseudo transparency but many video cards, mine included, just don't have the oomph to drive it

Now, for teh promised screenshots. The terminal on the right is using true transparency with compositing, the one on the left using pseudo-transparency.

To get pseudo-transparency, you specify "urxvt*inheritPixmap: true" in .Xdefaults to tell urxvt to watch the desktop and inherit its pixmap. Then you specify a tintColor value (specified as X-style "rgb:RR/GG/BB" or Web-style "#RRGGBB") to specify the tint color and tinting level.

To get true transparency, I'm not too sure what you specify in .Xdefaults since I don't use this mode all that often (I just enabled composite for a few minutes to get the screenshot above, it slows my system right down so I just can't use it), but I do know you need to use something like "urxvt -depth 32 -fg white -bg rgba:0000/0000/0000/aaaa".

I'll note that to match the color "drop", pseudo-transparency goes one way in the opacity spectrum - from 00 to FF - and true opacity goes the other way - from FF to 00. So, I configured the pseudo terminal with -tint rgb:44/44/44 and the other with rgba:0000/0000/0000/bbbb.

To give you a bit of a head start with all this, here's my (abridged, since you don't need my nedit or Xft settings ) .Xdefaults - you're almost certainly want to raise the tintColor value you find there.

URxvt*tripleclickwords:        1

URxvt*geometry:            80x25

URxvt*background:        black
URxvt*foreground:        white
URxvt*internalBorder:        1
URxvt*scrollBar:        false

URxvt*inheritPixmap:        true
URxvt*shading:            100
URxvt*tintColor:        rgb:15/15/20
URxvt*cursorColor:        cyan

! *color12:            #7777ff

URxvt*saveLines:        65535

URxvt*loginShell:        true

URxvt*title:            Terminal loading

URxvt*underlineColor:        #86a2be
URxvt.perl-ext-common:        default,matcher,scrollbtn
URxvt.matcher.button:        1
URxvt.matcher.pattern.1:    \bwww\.[\w-]\.[\w./?&@#-]*[\w/-]
URxvt*urlLauncher:        firefox

!URxvt.intensityStyles:        false

!URxvt.fadeColor:        #aaa
!URxvt.fading:            100

*color0:            #000000
*color1:            #9e1828
*color2:            #aece92
*color3:            #968a38
*color4:            #414171
*color5:            #963c59
*color6:            #418179
*color7:            #bebebe
*color8:            #666666
*color9:            #cf6171
*color10:            #c5f779
*color11:            #fff796
*color12:            #4186be
*color13:            #cf9ebe
*color14:            #71bebe
*color15:            #ffffff

-dav7

moljac024 · 2008-10-09 15:09:24

Or just put this in your .Xdefaults:

urxvt*transparent:       true
urxvt*inheritPixmap:    false
urxvt*background: rgba:0000/0000/0000/cccc
urxvt*depth: 32

Last edited by moljac024 (2008-10-09 15:10:50)

dav7 · 2008-10-10 04:42:39

Yes, that'll get you true transparency just fine.

-dav7

Convergence · 2008-10-11 03:08:09

Dave7: Whoah, you've done your homework. I haven't used urxvtd yet because I don't think it's entirely necessary for me. I use at most two terminals at a time, and if I need more, I use screen. Well, I also use guake, if I need the terminal in conjunction with firefox.

Your explanation of transparency answered some question that I've had for some time, gave me a better understanding of how it all works. I was able to get a nice looking terminal by copying others .Xdefaults, but it was just blind cutting and pasting. Thanks!

Dieter@be · 2008-10-11 09:26:57

Misbah wrote:

although I'm a sucker for efficiency, I am going for a bit of eye candy here.

Actually, xtrem is a very inefficient terminal. probably the least efficient out there. It does all it's output unbuffered, which makes it very slow (especially when it needs to show many updates). I think pretty much every other terminal emulater out there buffers output.

skottish · 2008-10-12 00:16:41

Convergence wrote:

Tenken: the only reason I would not recommend sakura, or any vte based emulator is that they are very slooow. Try this:
 time seq -f 'teeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeest %g' 1000000
on sakura, then an rxvt based terminal. The difference may not be noticeable to you, but on this old bean counter, it's VERY noticeable. Especially when scrolling through man pages full screen (any scrolling with lots of text on the screen at once)

With the VTE in testing right now, Sakura gets really, really bad. It became unusable for me just like Terminal from XCFE has been. Something as simple as pacman -Suy would guarantee that terminal would perform awfully for the rest of its session. I'm a urxvt convert as of today.

--EDIT--

This isn't a 'bean counter' either. My workstation is very powerful. To think a terminal would lag on this machine, then to think what it would do on anything less powerful... Yikes!

Last edited by skottish (2008-10-12 05:01:06)

NoOneImportant · 2008-10-12 03:37:18

sakura is good, but it sucks when it comes to gnu screen; also, real transparency doesn't work with xcompmgr (though I heard it works with compiz)

Although I hate hilighting+middle click copy-pasting, I prefer urxvt.

Statix · 2008-10-12 03:53:14

What about roxterm? That's what I use. It's basically a gnome terminal clone with all the things you described without the gnome deps.

Arch Linux

#1 2008-05-04 06:27:16

new terminal

#2 2008-05-04 09:12:17

Re: new terminal

#3 2008-05-04 14:25:00

Re: new terminal

#4 2008-05-04 14:30:38

Re: new terminal

#5 2008-05-04 15:06:24

Re: new terminal

#6 2008-05-04 15:27:56

Re: new terminal

#7 2008-05-04 15:59:43

Re: new terminal

#8 2008-05-04 18:54:34

Re: new terminal

#9 2008-10-09 02:46:16

Re: new terminal

#10 2008-10-09 10:41:17

Re: new terminal

#11 2008-10-09 11:11:51

Re: new terminal

#12 2008-10-09 13:35:58

Re: new terminal

#13 2008-10-09 14:07:32

Re: new terminal

#14 2008-10-09 15:09:24

Re: new terminal

#15 2008-10-10 04:42:39

Re: new terminal

#16 2008-10-11 03:08:09

Re: new terminal

#17 2008-10-11 09:26:57

Re: new terminal

#18 2008-10-12 00:16:41

Re: new terminal

#19 2008-10-12 03:37:18

Re: new terminal

#20 2008-10-12 03:53:14

Re: new terminal

Board footer