New version of Aterm: this is supposed to be better?

Gullible Jones · 2005-08-04 19:33:04

Sorry to say, but this new version of Aterm seems to have some problems. For one thing, the true tinting option (which is *always* enabled when you use shading) is now slow as all getout. If you move a shaded, transparent terminal, it takes a full second to adjust itself - the old version did this pretty much instantly. Also, the transparency option itself has some problems: after moving an aterm around a few times, it stops being transparent, switching instead to Gnome's default blue-gray background - and please note that I am not using Nautilus to draw the desktop. The same thing happens when I change the desktop background - the aterm switches to a single-color background, whereas the old version at least kept the original background image.

Edit: I just discovered that, if part of the transparent aterm is covered by another window, first that part, then the whole terminal, loses its transparency.

ozar · 2005-08-04 19:44:36

Hey, GJ... I just upgraded to the new version a little while ago myself, but haven't had a chance to play with it yet. Will report back with any problems here.

Sorry to hear it's not working correctly for you...

phrakture · 2005-08-04 19:47:41

urxvt is better - transparency is cleaner too 8)

Gullible Jones · 2005-08-04 20:06:57

URxvt is a vt100 terminal emulator - things like vim's syntax highlighting don't work in it.

ozar · 2005-08-04 20:09:25

Hmm... didn't know that. If that's the case, I'm not interested in urxvt.

ozar · 2005-08-04 20:41:18

Ok, I thought that sounded strange because I know lots of people are using it. Thanks for clarifying that, phrakture.

jackmetal · 2005-08-04 22:15:18

phrakture wrote:

urxvt is better - transparency is cleaner too 8)

I'm just curious; how does it compare to mrxvt? I've been looking at alternative terminals and have been playing around with mrxvt recently.

For some reason, I still keep using aterm....I do like the multi-tabs you can have with mrxvt though.

phrakture · 2005-08-04 22:21:17

jackmetal wrote:

phrakture wrote:
urxvt is better - transparency is cleaner too 8)
I'm just curious; how does it compare to mrxvt? I've been looking at alternative terminals and have been playing around with mrxvt recently.
For some reason, I still keep using aterm....I do like the multi-tabs you can have with mrxvt though.

They're different forks with different goals in mind. urxvt (rxvt-unicode) was forked to allow for unicode and different input methods... and kinda grew from there. mrxvt (multi-aterm) was originally forked to be a tabbed version of aterm.

Personally, I use screen so I have no need to a tabbed terminal - though urxvt in daemon mode allows for it (there's a perl script somewhere which does it)

jackmetal · 2005-08-04 22:29:28

Thanks for the info phrakture!

I don't have my .Xdefaults tweaked quite as good for mrxvt yet, as I do for aterm.... Once I do, I'll probably like it better than aterm.

ozar · 2005-08-04 22:38:20

Gullible, I'm not really noticing much of a speed difference here. If I run across a slow down, I'll post about it.

jackmetal · 2005-08-04 22:56:03

ozar Yep, it should be the -/+sr command line switch..

I also haven't noticed a slowdown in aterm, but then again; I just updated it this afternoon.

ozar · 2005-08-04 23:01:36

jackmetal wrote:

ozar Yep, it should be the -/+sr command line switch..

Ok, thanks, jackmetal! Apparently, I was editing my post as you were typing this. I didn't want it to appear that I was hijacking Gullible's thread. Sorry, Gullible... :oops:

Snowman · 2005-08-05 01:18:07

I haven't noticed any speed difference. But if I start an aterm from another terminal, it prints these message when I move the aterm:

config_geom = 581x340
root_geom = 581x340+303+400, root_size = 1024x768
config_geom = 581x340
root_geom = 581x340+303+399, root_size = 1024x768
config_geom = 581x340
root_geom = 581x340+302+400, root_size = 1024x768
config_geom = 581x340
root_geom = 581x340+302+400, root_size = 1024x768

The only way (I found) to not have these message is with &> /dev/null. Does anyone else get these messages?

Mordrek · 2005-08-05 09:05:07

How do you use a pixmap as background image with the new version of aterm? The pixmap option is still mentioned in the manual, but when i run "aterm -pixmap filename" i get this error-message: aterm: bad option "-pixmap".

Dr.U · 2005-08-05 09:19:50

With the new version of aterm I can no longer use my option for '-txtType orInverted' to read the output better when the background is transparent and the image is complex. I reverted to the older 0.4.2 version. :evil:

-- Dr. U

"I came from a real tough neighborhood. I put my hand
in some cement and felt another hand." -- Rodney Dangerfield

citral · 2005-08-05 15:41:28

I've used aterm for a long time, but it lacks AA fonts. I didn't like any of the alternatives, and KDE/Gnome terminal aren't an option either because I use xfce.
However, if you use Xfce4, the xfce Terminal (not included by default, but available in Arch) is a definite recommendation. I love it and it offers (afaik) everything aterm and urxvt have, and more (ie tabs). It's decently fast enough because it uses dbus to connect new sessions to the first Terminal.

As for the on-topic part; in Terminal I also didn't have any colors in vim. I found that I had the $TERM env. wrongly set. I had to set it to xterm-xfree86 to fix it. Your problem sounds like a config issue as well, perhaps this might help...

dk · 2005-08-13 03:43:11

Snowman wrote:

I haven't noticed any speed difference. But if I start an aterm from another terminal, it prints these message when I move the aterm:
config_geom = 581x340
root_geom = 581x340+303+400, root_size = 1024x768
config_geom = 581x340
root_geom = 581x340+303+399, root_size = 1024x768
config_geom = 581x340
root_geom = 581x340+302+400, root_size = 1024x768
config_geom = 581x340
root_geom = 581x340+302+400, root_size = 1024x768
The only way (I found) to not have these message is with &> /dev/null. Does anyone else get these messages?

Snowman-

I just upgraded yesterday and I'm getting the same errors. I also notice them when exiting x. Any ideas on a fix?

Snowman · 2005-08-13 06:37:50

yes. It can be easily patched. I'll post a patch Sunday night.

Snowman · 2005-08-14 21:11:14

As promised, here's the patch and PKGBUILD. I don't know if it's worth posting a bug report.
If you have problem with the patch, get it from here: http://www.astro.umontreal.ca/~belanger/output.patch

PKGBUILD:

pkgname=aterm
pkgver=1.0.0
pkgrel=1
pkgdesc="An xterm replacement with transparency support"
depends=('x-server')
url=http://aterm.sourceforge.net/
source=(http://dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/$pkgname/$pkgname-$pkgver.tar.bz2 output.patch)
md5sums=('ceb64c62ae243a7fc3ddb0d6f9a19faa' 'a199dd7926eaa7f991f381e28d13f98d')

build() {
  cd $startdir/src/$pkgname-$pkgver
  patch -p1 < ../output.patch || return 1
  ./configure --prefix=/usr --enable-transparency=yes 
    --enable-background-image --enable-fading --enable-menubar 
    --enable-graphics 
  make || return 1
  make prefix=$startdir/pkg/usr install
}

output.patch

diff -Naur aterm-1.0.0-orig/src/main.c aterm-1.0.0/src/main.c
--- aterm-1.0.0-orig/src/main.c 2005-08-13 12:58:26.000000000 -0400
+++ aterm-1.0.0/src/main.c      2005-08-13 17:28:33.000000000 -0400
@@ -1037,12 +1037,10 @@
        XConfigureEvent *xconf = &(ev->xconfigure);
        
        while( XCheckTypedWindowEvent( Xdisplay, TermWin.parent, ConfigureNotify, ev ) );
-       fprintf( stderr, "config_geom = %dx%dn", xconf->width, xconf->height );
     resize_window1(xconf->width, xconf->height);
 #if 1
        XTranslateCoordinates (Xdisplay, TermWin.parent, Xroot, 0, 0, &root_x, &root_y, &wdumm);
 
-       fprintf( stderr, "root_geom = %dx%d%+d%+d, root_size = %dx%dn", xconf->width, xconf->height, root_x, root_y, XdisplayWidth, XdisplayHeight ); 
        TermWin.root_x = root_x ; 
        TermWin.root_y = root_y ; 
        TermWin.root_width = xconf->width ;

dk · 2005-08-15 03:39:33

Thank you Snowman

Arch Linux

#1 2005-08-04 19:33:04

New version of Aterm: this is supposed to be better?

#2 2005-08-04 19:44:36

Re: New version of Aterm: this is supposed to be better?

#3 2005-08-04 19:47:41

Re: New version of Aterm: this is supposed to be better?

#4 2005-08-04 20:06:57

Re: New version of Aterm: this is supposed to be better?

#5 2005-08-04 20:09:25

Re: New version of Aterm: this is supposed to be better?

#6 2005-08-04 20:41:18

Re: New version of Aterm: this is supposed to be better?

#7 2005-08-04 22:15:18

Re: New version of Aterm: this is supposed to be better?

#8 2005-08-04 22:21:17

Re: New version of Aterm: this is supposed to be better?

#9 2005-08-04 22:29:28

Re: New version of Aterm: this is supposed to be better?

#10 2005-08-04 22:38:20

Re: New version of Aterm: this is supposed to be better?

#11 2005-08-04 22:56:03

Re: New version of Aterm: this is supposed to be better?

#12 2005-08-04 23:01:36

Re: New version of Aterm: this is supposed to be better?

#13 2005-08-05 01:18:07

Re: New version of Aterm: this is supposed to be better?

#14 2005-08-05 09:05:07

Re: New version of Aterm: this is supposed to be better?

#15 2005-08-05 09:19:50

Re: New version of Aterm: this is supposed to be better?

#16 2005-08-05 15:41:28

Re: New version of Aterm: this is supposed to be better?

#17 2005-08-13 03:43:11

Re: New version of Aterm: this is supposed to be better?

#18 2005-08-13 06:37:50

Re: New version of Aterm: this is supposed to be better?

#19 2005-08-14 21:11:14

Re: New version of Aterm: this is supposed to be better?

#20 2005-08-15 03:39:33

Re: New version of Aterm: this is supposed to be better?

Board footer