Vincent Lefevre: > On 2005-08-14 17:47:12 +0200, Jochen Schulz wrote: > > > > I don't agree but size 8 is way to small on my display anyway. There is > > always a tradeoff between screen usage and legibility and most of the > > time I prefer the latter. > > In fact, I remember that the real size also depends on the DPI. > I have the following in my .Xresources file: > > ! 88 is the right value so that the 8pt monospace font in gnome-terminal > ! has the same width as the 8pt-10pt bitmap fixed font. 96 is too much. > Xft.dpi: 88
Fiddling with the DPI setting can cause weird font display. The
"correct" solution would be to find out the real value for your monitor
and resolution. You can do this by explicitly telling X how large your
display is. Put something like this in the "Monitor" section of your
Xfree86/X.org config file:
Displaysize 283 212 # display dimensions in mm
Then restart X and search in the X log file for "DPI". Pick one of the
two values (one is horizontal, the other one is vertical and they may
slightly differ).
Your fonts may get displayed too large for your taste, but that is how
they ought to be displayed. You still have the choice how antialiasing
is done. With the more "thick" style (forgot how it's called) all the
fonts are a little bit smaller.
> > > With xterm, I can use the font "fixed", but selection in xterm is
> > > buggy (e.g. when using screen). With gnome-terminal, I can't use
> > > the font "fixed".
> >
> > You can. Just 'dpkg-reconfigure fontconfig' and answer 'Yes' to the
> > last question (something about bitmap fonts).
>
> No, it allows to select the font "fixed", but doesn't use the *real*
> font "fixed". I think this is bug 264993.
I remember this one. I wonder why it has never bitten me. I get the
correct font.
> > And as I already mentioned: if you like gnome-terminal
>
> I don't like it very much, due to the font problems and because
> it doesn't honour some of my xmodmap settings. There are other
> problems when I want to use it with a shell: it uses the UTF-8
> encoding in UTF-8 locales (not configurable) and it selects
> TERM=xterm, so that "tput enacs" fails, though it supports the
> ACS.
I think you've lost me now but maybe you have luck writing a bugreport.
I cannot tell whether you will have the same problems with
xfce4-terminal.
> The main advantage over xterm is that it doesn't lose the primary
> selection as soon as it is no longer visible.
The same is true for xfce4-terminal. But you cannot extend a selection
with the right mouse button because it opens the context menu. It's just
no problem for me since the main use case for that is copying hyperlinks
to my browser which xfce4-terminal supports with the middle button
click.
> I searched for other terminals in the past, but all of them were
> worse.
Agree.
> > you are problably better off using xce4-terminal.
>
> Where can I find it? "apt-file search xce4-terminal" doesn't return
> anything.
Typo. It's xfce4-terminal, of course.
> > Startup time is significantly shorter on my machine and it offers
> > all the features you are used to from gnome-terminal.
By the way, this may also come from the fact that there is (in most
cases) only one process for all terminals of a given user. That might be
a problem in case one of the terminals crashes, but that has never
occured to me.
> If it doesn't have the problems of gnome-terminal, and supports
> different encodings (ISO-8859-1 and UTF-8 at least), and if
> copy-paste doesn't suck, then this should be OK.
Good luck.
J.
--
There is no justice in road accidents.
[Agree] [Disagree]
<http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
