| 1 |
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 08:13:03 -0700 Gontran <gontran@×××××××.net> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> * Damon M. Conway (damon@×××××××××××.net) wrote: |
| 5 |
> > >1) Why, in your opinion, is aterm a better terminal emulator? |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > I don't know about better but I use it because it has transparency |
| 8 |
> and |
| 9 |
> > tinting without being a resource hog. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> Yes, because of this. Oh and did he mention because it has |
| 12 |
> transparancy and |
| 13 |
> tinting and is not a resource hog? 8) |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> > >2) The extra work you describe is not necessary on _rc6 - pty.... |
| 17 |
> > >devices are available; no need to mount pts. Aterm starts aok. |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > Yes, I've had no problems running aterm since I started with |
| 20 |
> Gentoo on rc5 |
| 21 |
> > back in July. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Yeah, I probably messed up my kit or somthing. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
So, then is xterm a resource hog? Aterm looks pretty, I doubt that I |
| 27 |
could tell the difference in resource consumption. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Collins Richey |
| 31 |
Denver Area |
| 32 |
gentoo_rc6 xfce+sylpheed |
Archives