Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

[vovchik]

Dear Pizzasgood,

Thanks for your termcap. It works perfectly. For those wishing to launch apps via -x, please note that sakura uses -e for that function. These are the command line arguments from the manpage:

[KF6SNJ]

I like this new(?) terminal. I set it up to look similiar to the old basic prompt of the TI-99/4A, which is a little easier on my eyes. Really cool. Thanks.

[alcy]

Thanks Pizzasgood for the fix !

[big_bass]

[ttuuxxx]

Thanks Pizzasgood I updated the main release package with the new termcap file you posted
ttuuxxx

[SirDuncan]

Yes, that works much better. Pizzasgood, Ttuuxxx, you guys are great.

[alienjeff]

[hillside]

knowledge, skill, and a helpful attitude = ego? I suppose I can live with that.

[ttuuxxx]

I added a slackware version on the main post for series3 due to the fact That I had reports thats copy and paste didn't work on series 3, But now it does
ttuuxxx

[afecelis]

whoa! ttuuxxx , thanks a lot, this is exactly what I had in mind as a terminal for my puppy!

regards,

Alvaro

[AirCon]

[bambuko]

[vovchik]

Dear puppians,

We have heard the anti-eyecandy and pro-eyecandy arguments ad nauseum. I, for one, want a consistent desktop, and my gtk apps do this for me automatically. Being a stickler for UI consistency (and a stickler with regard to programming consistency, using functions in bash, for example and not spaghetti code, and preferring Modula to C++ in principle), I see everything "right" in promoting visual consistency for Puppy apps. I, for example, use a OSX-style interface, and go to great lengths to get QT3, QT4, java (swing with gtk), tk/tcl (with Gnocl), Wine (with an appropriate theme) and whatever else to look nearly identical. It's not that hard to achieve UI uniformity if your really want to. If you don't, that's also fine - but it's definitely not my cup of tea. As for Sakura, it meets the needs of most users for a terminal emulator, does it using very little in terms of memory and does it more attractively than good old rxvt. For that reason alone, it's an eminently suitable replacement.

As an aside, since I am a professional composer, I would be very dissatisfied if a desk, or one on a desk, of string players told me that he/she/they wished to play using his/her/their own intonation. I would sooner tell them either to play my way or not to play at all, since they would be ruining the performance. There is something to be said for collective unity in that instance and for consistency when it comes to the interface between a human and a machine, not to mention the less tangible aesthetic aspect. It is not visual "audacity" I am after (eye candy for eye candy's sake), but simple consistency. In all orchestral scores, woodwinds come first, followed by brass - French horns first - followed by non-tuned then tuned percussion (including piano, harp, marimba, vibraphone, etc.) and then the strings, the real guts of an orchestra. In Mozart's Requiem, for example, we get the normal orch. parts and then the trailing vocals, solo and SATB, in the standard editions. That is the way it is done, and that is the way ALL conductors expect it, conductors who have studied in conservatories in various countries and with various backgrounds. Do it any other way, and I can guarantee you the music you write will never be played - since it reflects a large degree of unprofessionalism and lack of formal training on the part of the composer. It is much the same with users and the UIs they confront from the "composers" of computer programs. If you can do it with proper fonts, antialiasing, GUI consistency etc., etc., then more power to you. And users will appreciate it.

With kind regards,
vovchik

[greengeek]