-1 on st due to the lack of scroll back
+0 on alacrity if we provide a fallback for older hardware

I prefer alacritty. I think it's easier to use and more friendly for most users. And I'm using it.

I'm also on the alacritty side for i3-extended.

It definitely is, but it simply does not launch on older systems without an=
y visible errors (which is pretty bad ux)=2E

On June 25, 2021 4:02:45 AM UTC, Arman Arisman pagure@pagure=2Eio wrote:

armanwu added a new comment to an issue you are following:
I prefer `alacritty`=2E I think it's easier to use and more friendly for most users=2E=20

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure=2Eio/i3-sig/Fedora-i3-Spin/issue/61

By the way there is already urxvt in the minimal package. Is it necessary to provide another terminal in extended package?

Yeah, urxvt sorta-kinda sucks and we all dislike it. But so far we could
only agree on not liking urxvt, not on what else to pick.

True. I didn't like urxvt, especially the default appearance. But since I tried i3 spin with urxvt, I started to like it. And now I'm still using urxvt, with xrdb.

urxvt is just like "We need something basic", but to the extended we would like to have a nicer terminal emulator. I'm not in favor on any of the proposed, I use kitty, but we need to do one of the following:

• Select a new terminal emulator
• Ship a customized urxvt (a .Xresources)

My problem is that both st and alacritty aren't easy to configure to end users, urxvt is harder and the terminal emulators that are easy to configure are heavy like tilix, terminator, qterminal, or desktop specific like gnome-terminal, xfce4-terminal, sugar-terminal, mate-terminal, etc.

I agree. We need to have a nicer terminal emulator. Personally, I don't mind with customized urxvt. Because I'm using it now (configure the .Xresources). But many people don't like urxvt even though it's been customized.

So I prefer to select a new terminal emulator. I'm still choosing alacritty than st. Even though they are both difficult but in my opinion alacritty is easier than st.

I just configured my urxvt. I prefer dark theme, but the Fedora color is so bright (light blue and white). I still need to adjust the color.

URxvt*font: xft:Monospace:regular:pixelsize=12
URxvt*boldFont: xft:Monospace:bold:pixelsize=12
URxvt*italicFont: xft:Monospace:italic:pixelsize=12
URxvt*boldItalicFont: xft:Monospace:bold italic:pixelsize=12

URxvt*letterSpace: 1
URxvt.lineSpace: 1
URxvt*depth: 12
URxvt*scrollBar: false
URxvt*internalBorder: 8
URxvt*externalBorder: 8

*.foreground:   #c0d0f0
*.background:   #1e2c39
*.cursorColor:  #83cafa

! black
*.color0:       #6b7c97
*.color8:       #5c7396

! red
*.color1:       #c55d67
*.color9:       #b84e59

! green
*.color2:       #a3c685
*.color10:      #8cb26d

! yellow
*.color3:       #e9c274
*.color11:      #eabb5e

! blue
*.color4:       #83cafa
*.color12:      #6ec5ff

! magenta
*.color5:       #d592c9
*.color13:      #d384c4

! cyan
*.color6:       #83cfb8
*.color14:      #6dc0a6

! white
*.color7:       #d3ddee
*.color15:      #c2ccde

So I prefer to select a new terminal emulator. I'm still choosing alacritty than st. Even though they are both difficult but in my opinion alacritty is easier than st.

alacritty is definitely the better choice for beginners. Literally the
only reason I am against alacritty is that it will silently fail to
launch if your hardware is too old. And that's a huge nogo in my
opinion. Provided that we manage to implement a sensible fallback, I'd
say we should go with alacritty.

-1 on st due to the lack of scroll back

can we package this patch if that's the problem?
https://st.suckless.org/patches/scrollback/

there's a lot of patches for st, idk why Fedora doesn't package that (maybe has license issues, i'm not sure). but still, it's hard to configure.

My problem is that both st and alacritty aren't easy to configure to end users, urxvt is harder and the terminal emulators that are easy to configure are heavy like tilix, terminator, qterminal, or desktop specific like gnome-terminal, xfce4-terminal, sugar-terminal, mate-terminal, etc.

indeed, that's why I stick w/ gnome-terminal but, I guess, it's too gnome-ish for i3.

-1 on st due to the lack of scroll back

can we package this patch if that's the problem?
https://st.suckless.org/patches/scrollback/

there's a lot of patches for st, idk why Fedora doesn't package that (maybe has license issues, i'm not sure). but still, it's hard to configure.

@psabata What's your take on this as the maintainer of st?

I think we can close this, since xfce4-terminal is now the default terminal emulator.

indeed