| |
| ▲ | rasterman a day ago | parent | next [-] | | there are in fact ways of drawing raw bitmap data in terminals - look up sixel for starters... but that's not what this is about. the escapes to do images and video are very simple and very lean in terms of i/o from pty to terminal - unlike sixel. i added this because it's useful. to me. and apparently to quite a few other people. as i've explained. a quick tycat file.mp4 or typop file.jpg or tybg file.mpg etc. - or even roll these escapes with echo's into your shell rc files... like you might change prompt colors with escapes when you su/sudo as root or you ssh into another machine and change the terminal title to alert you - you can use images and video to do this too. you can just not use the feature. fine. up to you. why should your lack of desire for it mean no one else gets a useful feature for them? it was not like adding the support was drastically difficult and i had to write an entire video codec engine. i re-used existing support that already wrapped it up in a nice little bow (i also wrote most of that support code in efl btw so i know what it can do, what it does and how it does it). i can ALSO use my gui in the normal way. i wrote a video player too: rage. plays video (and music too - snarfs album art for music if you have none too). i wrote a file manager or 2 or 3... they show thumbnails of files... can even pop up a video and play it in a tooltip popup... same libraries behind terminology do all the hard work. i can choose whatever workflow works for me at the time. i'm not limited to one way only. this softens the boundaries between workflows and brings some features of of workflow into another. it creates less of an abrupt "i have to switch" and more of a "i can just keep going for a while doing what i was doing". my new rewrite of efm (e's built-in filemanagger) also has a terminal-like worklflow. i can literally in the efm window type "ls ./dir" and it will liteally change to that dir and list/show it. same with "cd .." or "rm a.jpg b.txt *.png" and it will delete those files. you can even just run apps like "gimp file.png" .... and it knows gimp is a command and there is a desktop file for it and will let you know by putting an icon next to it.. and it'll just run the command with those arguments... this is the inverse of terminology - it's bringing some terminal workflow into a gui filemanager. it softens the boundaries. it allows you to use muscle memory you already have for more things. that's the point. terminology has other handy features that piggyback off the same extended escapes. tysend will do a zmodem-like transfer of a file via the terminal. and btw - the libraries that deal with images and video.. they can also load xls files... and pdf too - as images. it's how the filemangager can generate thumbnails for them... they can actually access arbitrary pages in a pdf - it's just a feature of the image loader. so a little wrapper and you can flip through rendered pages of a pdf... i just didn't do a "paged interface" in terminology like i did a video/audio one with play/pause etc. controls... i could pretty easily. :) easy enough to add though... but i'm busy with the filemanager work at the moment. | | |
| ▲ | em-bee 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | this softens the boundaries between workflows and brings some features of of workflow into another. it creates less of an abrupt "i have to switch" and more of a "i can just keep going for a while doing what i was doing". some time last year i tried out that terminal plugin for the nautilus/nemo filemanagers, and it has changed how i work quite a lot. i always love doing things within a greater context. that's why i use tmux with a dozen sessions and half a dozen terminals in each. because instead of changing directories, each terminal is in a specific context and used for a specific purpose. combining a graphical filemanager with a terminal likewise puts that terminal into a context. unfortunately the integration is not great. the terminal keeps track of the directory if i use the filemanager to switch, but the filemanager does not track the directory of the terminal if i use the cd command to switch there. i can select files in the filemanager and drag them into the terminal to use as arguments to a command. but i'd also like the opposite: type a wildcard in the terminal to select files in the filemanager. the filemanager has that as an independent feature, but that's not convenient. how about i run a command that lists some files, and then have those files shown in the graphical filemanager. these things could all be better integrated. i have been looking for other filemanagers to offer terminal support, but i could only find dolphin, which unfortunately only shares one terminal between tabs. that doesn't work for me. i need a separate terminal per tab. the efm feature is cool. i just tried it by running e in a nested X server (Xephyr). but it doesn't go far enough. i'd like that combined with a real terminal so i can do any commandline action with the selected files. | |
| ▲ | antisol a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > my new rewrite of efm (e's built-in filemanagger) also has a terminal-like worklflow. i can literally in the efm window type "ls ./dir" and it will liteally change to that dir and list/show it. same with "cd .." or "rm a.jpg b.txt *.png" and it will delete those files. you can even just run apps like "gimp file.png" .... and it knows gimp is a command and there is a desktop file for it and will let you know by putting an icon next to it.. and it'll just run the command with those arguments
Oh, damn, that sounds cool. I might have to give that a try. |
| |
| ▲ | antisol 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > or whatever the tycat thingy understands
You're missing the point, which is that the EFL library just has media playback built into it - for a lot of different formats. Like Carsten mentioned, tycat doesn't do anything special, it just emits the right escape sequences to tell the terminal "display file X". And then terminology just says "hey media library, give me a player for file X". tycat doesn't need to know or care about file formats, nor does terminology. > And then you only need access to the mouse position in pixel granularity, and you basically have the foundation for a graphical environment. We can implement Qt and GTK for that new thingy.
You (rightly) say this sarcastically. But people have done things like this. I was playing around a while back with embedding GUI elements like buttons inside terminology. I've got a library (which I should finish) to display gorgeous GUI-style progressbars in terminology. This also works for things like buttons - it's possible to display an actual GUI button inside the terminal, and to have it emit events that you can respond to. Limited real-world practical value, perhaps, but interesting IMO. > But: What is it for? Why not use your graphical environment in a direct way?
Rasterman and I have both given examples of how this improves the terminal experience. Being able to preview media files in your terminal is a direct, measurable enhancement to usability: it removes the context switch and time of having to fire up a media player to preview a file, and the need to move your hand from keyboard to mouse and back. > What is it for? Why not use your graphical environment in a direct way? The existence of terminal emulators is the proof for it being at least as strong (or stronger) as your terminal can ever get. Right?
I'm not sure what you mean by "at least as strong as your terminal can ever get"?We do also use our graphical environment. It's just that our terminal also happens to not be stuck in the 1970s and pretending it's running on a teletype. Decades ago someone could have made a very similar argument to the one you're making that we shouldn't have added colours to terminals because real dumb terminals are all green or amber screen. It's at least partially about pushing the envelope, not accepting the status quo, and trying to improve things. Terminal emulators tend to have a fixed feature set and there's a bunch of things they can't do that would be nice to have. I mentioned the kitty terminal emulator before. It's doing similar things. And it's quite popular with the kids. These enhancements to terminals are a good thing! I'm glad these people are experimenting with things even if they turn out to not be very useful (and many terminology improvements are great!) Another great example of this type of thing is the tysend command, which lets you download files without starting a new ssh session: you're ssh'd into some remote machine and you want a file. You can switch to another terminal and scp, or (as long as the host you're logged into has tysend), you can just do 'tysend /path/to/file'. Terminology pops up a (very pretty) save dialog asking where you want to save the file, and then displays a (very pretty) progress bar while the transfer happens. I think maybe you need to try terminology to understand the many, many ways it's superior to a more conventional terminal emulator. For me, terminology is definitely enlightenment's "killer app". You can try it just by installing it, btw - you don't need to be running enlightenment :) | | |
| ▲ | pino83 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > You're missing the point, which is that the EFL library just has media playback built into it - for a lot of different formats. As far as I understand, you're missing the point. Every format that someone now wants to handle on terminal, needs to be supported by the EFL library?! Does it support LO spreadsheets? PDFs? Audacity projects? Raw camera images? HTML? Yes? And now I want to switch away from LO to some very new office tools, and I cannot, because EFL doesn't support it yet? And all that just in order to show some previews in a terminal emulator instead of the graphical environment around it that is perfectly capable to do so since half a century? Where all the applications already exist? > tycat doesn't need to know or care about file formats, nor does terminology Fine. Just replace tycat with EFL in what I wrote before. > I was playing around a while back with embedding GUI elements like buttons inside terminology. [...] Limited real-world practical value, perhaps, but interesting IMO. Yes, it sounds like an interesting puzzle. But it's artificial. It solves a problem that just doesn't exist at all, and it doesn't actually improve anything, as long as it's not universally supported (at least in an actual Linux virtual terminal outside of X11/Wayland). > Rasterman and I have both given examples of how this improves the terminal experience. But why are you trying to improve the horse riding experience, if you actually have a car that is just artificially stripped down to feel like a horse? Just use the car as a car instead! ;) What context switch are you talking about? Your eyes moving to where the new window opened? srsly? Why can't the same folks not improve keyboard support in e.g. VLC? If it's actually so bad... Is it? I rarely feel the desire to keyboard control a media player, admittedly... But I would be surprised if VLC is worse in that regard than some terminal thingy that is a niche inside a niche inside a niche... A terminal media player needs the same explicit development work to get it right. It's not magically keyboard-friendly just because it involves antiquated technology for displaying. > and time of having to fire up a media player to preview a file You fire up a new tycat instance instead. What's the difference? Here VLC takes, idk, 500ms?! Half of it is the window animation that I could turn off, if I would dislike it (I don't). > I mentioned the kitty terminal emulator before. It's doing similar things. And it's quite popular with the kids. These enhancements to terminals are a good thing! Yeah, make them universally work on any virtual terminals, and then it'd be at least an interesting discussion whether this was an actual improvement or not. As long as I need some E terminal, or a particular terminal that is "popular with the kids", I really don't see at all why this is a good idea to spend any efforts for. Just use the car as a car, instead of disabling the engine, pretending it to be a horse, and then find clever ways to make it feel more like a car again. It already _is_ a car. Don't make up artificial restrictions that do not exist, just in order to find mediocre ways to somehow patch parts of them away a bit. Give Dolphin a chance! It's like the kids' vi setup, just with slightly different shortcuts, and without all the weaknesses. It even can render actual icons without a patched terminal font! And if keyboard support is weak, then this is not because it's not a terminal application. Make them a bug report. Or, if appropriately skilled, send them a patch! Then we all profit from it. Bonus: It can display emojis, without breaking alignment in half of the terminal emulators, because the actual glyph width differs from what the "API" (i.e. dancing some escape sequences and somehow intercept the answers from somewhere) tells you. | | |
| ▲ | jasomill 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't understand your arguments. Whatever desktop environment you're referring to probably uses some of the same underlying third-party libraries for file format support as EFL, so what's the difference? Why would being able to display graphical elements in my terminal program only be useful if it were supported on the Linux virtual console or some other terminal program I don't use? Why would you expect "the same folks" to stop working on projects they find interesting or useful in favor of fixing your problems with entirely different applications? | | |
| ▲ | pino83 2 days ago | parent [-] | | At first, I don't expect anything from anybody; that's just way beyond my privileges, unfortunately... :D I can only comment things and add my 2 ct. All the terminal tech ecosystem is already somewhat beyond it's actual capabilities. You see that when you e.g. use tmux or screen. Or when you just have some emojis which are actually wider than the API tells you and your alignment goes off the rails. Or that conceptual discrepancy between the 16 colors support, where users can typically decide freely how exactly each color should look like (up to the point of having the background in white instead of black), and then the additional 256-color support, which adds 240 more colors (or sth like that?!), but with really fixed color values... Everything is just a historically grown mess. And I've just mentioned a few points that came to my mind spontaneously, and there are probably a lot of further problems that I've never even heard about. With that in mind, when I hear about the idea of hacking full graphics support into that, as a professional software developer my first instinct is to understand whether that's really worth the trouble. And what the rationale behind is. And whether it actually makes sense, from an architecture perspective if you want to call it this way. And all the arguments that I've read here made no sense to me at all. It feels more like a cult when I talk to terminal-centric users. I don't have any privileges to decide for any involved project, though. If e.g. Konsole starts supporting that tomorrow, well, I'd doubt this was a useful thing, but then that's what it is. I could then only hope that they didn't break other things. As a Linux user since 20 years, my experience tells me that all these things always break something else. And then it's basically for people who say that basic image viewers start too slow for them. Either that's trivially fixable (and then we'd all be better off doing _that_ instead!), or just an illusion/cult, or the EFL previews will not be faster. There is just no way they could be faster. A basic graphical image viewer would do the same thing, just without all these indirection, translation to escape sequences, interpreting them again, etc. Similar for the matters of proper keyboard support. | | |
| ▲ | rasterman a day ago | parent | next [-] | | the cost of launching a new process with a gui is not cheap. there's a lot of setup before you even get a window up ... when that process is already there (terminal) with all of that cost paid for it is actually provably cheaper in terms of cpu cycles, latency etc. to pop up an image/video in your terminal. and cheaper not by 1 or 2 ms... but by 100's ms or more. that new window is not cheap. you also have the visual disconnect - the window pops up somewhere else with your wm having no idea that that new window is related to the terminal you ran it from because there will be no transient_for hints set to say that. relying on process tree hunting to figure this out is a crapshoot at best and will probably give you more misses than hits. we can go down that rabbit hole if you want but trust me - it is measurably less overhead to pop it up in a terminal with a few dozen chars worth of escapes sent to the terminal to do it. | | |
| ▲ | pino83 an hour ago | parent [-] | | In terms of wall clock time, on my system, it costs nothing. I can start a "Hello World" application based on Qt or GTK, and the window is there while I'm still releasing the Enter key. Technically, sure, a lot of things happen... But it's not happening on a P-90 anymore... :) BTW: My machine wasn't particularly strong or expensive either, when I bought it 6 years ago. ;) When I read (in your other reply) that you are trying "soften the boundaries between workflows and bring some features of of workflow into another", well, that probably sounds nice... I just get a headache tbh... I'm sure it was fun and a big achievement to implement that. And there obviously is a fan-base for that. So where am I... :) |
| |
| ▲ | antisol a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I don't expect anything from anybody
Aah, I see. So then I guess that wasn't a demand that people who have their own perfectly functional terminals with graphics support that they've been using for years and are perfectly happy with patch graphics functionality into every other terminal in existence just in case you might happen to try to use a terminal program that requires graphics support. I guess I must have misunderstood. Silly me. > can only comment things and add my 2 ct.
Perhaps it would be wise to do some basic reading and perhaps even testing to understand some of the basics about how the technology works before making comments about them. This is an excellent method to not come across as totally uninformed and ignorant. > All the terminal tech ecosystem is already somewhat beyond it's actual capabilities. You see that when you e.g. use tmux or screen
??? > Or when you just have some emojis which are actually wider than the API tells you and your alignment goes off the rail
????My terminal displays emojis just fine and they align just fine as far as I know. Have you considered trying software that isn't shit? Or filing a bug report containing more than zero detail on the issue? > Or that conceptual discrepancy between the 16 colors support, where users can typically decide freely how exactly each color should look like
This is actually extremely straightforward if you spend 5 minutes understanding how it works, particularly with regards to backwards compatibility with terminals that don't support it. Which are few - it's incredibly well-supported in almost all terminals. I don't know what you're talking about... > (or sth like that?!)
...and neither do you.Damn, your nose is going to get right out of joint if you ever learn about RGB terminal colours. Shhh, nobody tell him! > Everything is just a historically grown mess
Indeed! Finally something we agree on!And people working to improve terminals with efforts like terminology and kitty are trying to do what they can to address some of these issues without breaking anything. Which is hard. It's really quite an admirable effort worthy of respect. But first you'd need to understand what they're doing. > there are probably a lot of further problems that I've never even heard about.
I have no doubt that there's lots that you haven't heard about > when I hear about the idea of hacking full graphics support into that, as a professional software developer my first instinct is to understand whether that's really worth the trouble
Ooh, appeal to authority. I'm so impressed.Perhaps, as "a professional software developer", you should take the time to understand the tech that you're talking about. Doing so will help you form an informed opinion and will help you to avoid wasting everyone's time reading ignorant, uninformed, assumption-laden nonsense. > And what the rationale behind is
Excellent! So go back and try actually reading my previous posts. That'll help a lot with this. > And whether it actually makes sense, from an architecture perspective
Excellent! So go and read the docs and form an actual opinion that isn't "I don't like the sound of this herp derp". I'm sure once it's not immediately obvious that you have no clue what you're talking about and have spent zero seconds attempting to understand the architecture, people will be happy to discuss your pull requests making all the revolutionary improvements that I'm sure you'll make. > And all the arguments that I've read here made no sense to me at all
Then maybe you should try actually reading them > It feels more like a cult when I talk to terminal-centric users.
Aah! And the penny drops! You don't know how to use the terminal and don't understand its benefits. So of course you don't understand the arguments I've repeatedly outlined for why this functionality is desirable. > As a Linux user since 20 years, my experience tells me that all these things always break something else
Ooh, appeal to authority #2. I'm so impressed! Meanwhile I've been using linux since last century.Enlighten me, then, o great software developer and 20-year Linux user: What does the graphics support in terminology / kitty break? Maybe you should spend 5 minutes understanding how it works before you go making assumptions. > people who say that basic image viewers start too slow for them
You. Do. Not. Understand. My. Point. Because you don't understand how I operate. Because you don't know how to use a terminal. > Either that's trivially fixable (and then we'd all be better off doing _that_ instead!),
Please explain, in excruciating detail, exactly how you plan to "trivially" prevent the need to load in the qt library to get VLC to start and show its qt interface. I look forward to reading your technical paper. > or just an illusion/cult, or the EFL previews will not be faster
I already provided you with hard timing data demonstrating that previewing videos in terminology is more than 90% faster than the way you'd do it. If you have something other than completely uninformed assumptions based on nothing at all to back up your claim that previewing in terminology is not faster, please present your data here.But as I've alluded to repeatedly and you've completely ignored, speed is actually not the primary issue. It's the context change. It's that "taking my hand off the keyboard" thing. Even more, it's the "staying in the same application" thing. And it's also more than all those factors. It's a similar phenomenon to how I can't really explain to you just exactly how pipes are amazing and one of the most incredibly powerful paradigms you could ever learn. I can't really explain it to you properly because IMO the only way that it will really click in your head is in the moment that you really actually understand pipes, and to do that you have to actually learn and work with pipes. You're just fixated on the speed because you don't understand the cost of the context change because you don't understand how terminal people work, because you don't know how to use a terminal and think that switching contexts constantly and twiddling your thumbs while GUIs initialise is normal and fine. And that's fine, if you want to work like a windows user. You do you, and more power to you. Just stay the fuck away from making suggestions about how terminals should or shouldn't work. > There is just no way they could be faster
I have already explained in excruciating detail some of the major reasons why they are. If you still don't understand, I'd suggest reading my previous responses where I explain that. Or, you know, doing some further reading to understand the technology you're talking about. > A basic graphical image viewer would do the same thing, just without all these indirection, translation to escape sequences, interpreting them again
Maybe you should spend 5 minutes reading and understanding the technology you're commenting about, so that you don't make wildly incorrect assumptions, and don't come off as totally ignorant and uninformed.Who translates what exactly into escape sequences that you think is more expensive than loading up the gtk/qt/wx widget libraries and instantiating a new window? > Similar for the matters of proper keyboard support
Without some detail of what you're talking about this is just a non sequitur. Terminology works fine with my keyboard, as has...let me think... every terminal I've used in the last 30+ years.Since we're doing non sequiturs, allow me to retort: Avatar 3 was shit. |
|
| |
| ▲ | antisol 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Every format that someone now wants to handle on terminal, needs to be supported by the EFL library?! Does it support LO spreadsheets? PDFs?
Why would you want to work with a spreadsheet in the terminal when there's a perfectly capable spreadsheet application right there?But if you want to be able to preview libreoffice spreadsheets or PDFs in terminology - and also incidentally and for free every other EFL project which uses that control - I'm sure they'd be happy to look at your pull request. > And now I want to switch away from LO to some very new office tools, and I cannot, because EFL doesn't support it yet?
What?? so you open your preferred office tool. From terminology if you want to. I don't see why this is so difficult to understand? What about what I'm describing inhibits you from editing a spreadsheet in your spreadsheet editor? > And all that just in order to show some previews in a terminal emulator instead of the graphical environment around it that is perfectly capable to do so since half a century? Where all the applications already exist?
And all what? Raster already explained that it's like 3 lines of code.The graphical environment might be able to do the same job, but as I've pointed out time and time again, it can't do it nearly as quickly or as fluidly when I'm already working in a terminal. We've been over this ad nauseum, but I'll just point out for the 30,000th time that all the ways you talk about involve opening up some other, slower program and switching away from the teminal. Which is a less seamless experience than just viewing the thing right there in the terminal. I don't know how I can state it any more clearly. Did I say "editing the thing" or "working with the thing"? No, no I didn't say that. Because I didn't mean "Editing" or "working with". > Fine. Just replace tycat with EFL in what I wrote before
OK so just to clarify: your complaint is that in order to be able to view a file of a particular format, EFL needs to be able to... parse that file format? ...Like every piece of PC software ever made? > But it's artificial. It solves a problem that just doesn't exist at all, and it doesn't actually improve anything, as long as it's not universally supported (at least in an actual Linux virtual terminal outside of X11/Wayland).
You don't know what you're talking about. It does indeed solve a problem. It could allow an entirely new class of incredibly rich hybrid terminal/gui applications, for one thing. And I've already given examples of it tangibly improving things. Just because you don't understand doesn't make it useless. > But why are you trying to improve the horse riding experience, if you actually have a car that is just artificially stripped down to feel like a horse? Just use the car as a car instead! ;)
By your analogy, a GUI application is somehow better than a terminal one. Which it just isn't. You've got things backwards. A car that's stripped down to feel like a horse??? What the fuck are you on about? > What context switch are you talking about
For the fifty-thousandth time: launching an entirely new application, waiting a geological age while it gets its shit together, switching to it, getting my bearings, and finally actually viewing the file. > Why can't the same folks not improve keyboard support in e.g. VLC?
How would that relieve me of the need to start VLC in your suggested workflow? > I would be surprised if VLC is worse in that regard than some terminal thingy
Who said anything about running a media player in a terminal?(btw, off-subject, but there are a couple of really great terminal-based media players. And I can pretty much guarantee their keyboard controls are superior to vlc. But I'm not sure because I don't really try to keyboard control VLC. Because I don't have to. Because I don't have to launch it to preview a media file) > You fire up a new tycat instance instead. Here VLC takes, idk, 500ms?! I just fired up VLC. It took about 3 seconds (that's 3000ms, but what's 600% between friends?) from launch to a window being visible. According to htop, that empty VLC window with no file opened used up about 100Mb of my memory. conversely: $ time tycat /path/to/some_video.mp4
real 0m0.142s
user 0m0.117s
sys0m0.043s
I wasn't able to easily determine the ram used by tycat, because it closes so fast. But given how complicated it isn't, I'd expect it to be measured in kilobytes. I can (and have) written a bash script which is a very close equivalent to tycat as part of my command not found handle. It's 1.3Kb. > What's the difference?
Well, about 2858ms, give or take. Or if you prefer: about 95.2%. And about 100Mb of RAM, give or take. And a context switch. And me taking my hand off the keyboard. > Yeah, make them universally work on any virtual terminals, and then it'd be at least an interesting discussion
Feel free to submit a PR to the makers of your preferred terminal. Or you could switch to a terminal that's less shit than the one you're using.Why do you expect me to care what terminal you're using? Do you think I write software in the hope that you in particular will use it? If you want to use worse software and not be supported by my terminology-specific stuff, be my guest. > As long as I need some E terminal, or a particular terminal that is "popular with the kids"
When did anyone say you needed it or had to use it? I encouraged you to try it so that you might come off as less totally ignorant, but you're free to keep using your less-capable terminals and the worse software that works on them if you like. I don't actually care what you use. > I really don't see at all why this is a good idea to spend any efforts for
No, you really don't.Just remember to go and set your terminal to not support colour - after all it's not supported by any of those amber-screens! And while you're at it you better disable those extended unicode characters and switch back to baudot code. You can probably find a punchcard reader if you look around. > Just use the car as a car, instead of disabling the engine, pretending it to be a horse, and then find clever ways to make it feel more like a car again. It already _is_ a car. Don't make up artificial restrictions that do not exist, just in order to find mediocre ways to somehow patch parts of them away a bit.
Your analogy is so hilariously flawed and backwards. It's very clear you don't understand. "disabling the engine"? Lol.No. Your terminal emulator is a horse. A tired, old horse. That's gray and boring and totally uninteresting. So uninteresting that you haven't even noticed it's got an infection in its foot. Meanwhile, my terminal emulator is a horse with cybernetic legs and wings that allow it to break the sound barrier, and also fly. And if I keep messing around a bit I might be able to get it to do even more cool stuff. Who knows what exactly? Will all of it be groundbreaking and super useful immediately? Maybe not. But it'll be fun and interesting and it can already do shit you never even imagined was possible and can't even comprehend when I tell you about it, insisting on asking backwards questions like "well yeah but if it's flying then what happens with the horseshoes?" Have fun with your old nag! > Give Dolphin a chance!
If I'm being honest, the chance of me ever trying any kde trash again is about 0.1%. Which in its defense is about 50 times more likely than me trying gnome trash. I'm sure it's just as bloated as the other ten thousand bloated file managers."patched terminal font"?? What the fuck are you talking about?? It's almost like you don't understand what you're talking about. > Bonus: It can display emojis
Your file manager can display emojis? Whoop-de-doo. Welcome to like, idk, 2010? Probably earlier tbh. Or are you bragging that your teminal emulator can display emojis? Like every terminal emulator I've seen for a very long time can, and like terminology could i don't even know how long ago because I've never seen it not do it. > because the actual glyph width differs from what the "API" (i.e. dancing some escape sequences and somehow intercept the answers from somewhere) tells you.
I'm just going to respond to this with something exactly as sensible and coherent. Here goes:Argle bargle snerf blu carn delg bling blong blu barg sneh bork mert. |
|
|
|
