On Tuesday, 15 January 2013 at 16:22:19 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 11:56:34AM +0100, mist wrote:
On Monday, 14 January 2013 at 23:57:18 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>This generally comes up as an argument in these discussions,
>but I
>don't buy it. Not all development is done on a desktop with a
>huge
>screen. And even then, there is always something to put on it.
>What window manager are you using?
Well, I hardly can imagine rationale behind using netbook for
serious development aside from being on trip. Even being
forced to
work in ssh to some legacy shell ( I have that unpleasant
experience
:( ) usually limits your term width, not height.
Heh. On the contrary, I find ssh to be a pleasant experience.
Most
GUI-heavy editors are so painfully inefficient to use that I
find VT100
emulators far more pleasant to work with.
I am vim user myself, but some legacy shells did not support more
than 80 symbol width, thus the pain and according code style
guidelines for us poor programmers on that project :)
I am using Gnome Shell, but working mostly in full-screen
undecorated terminal. It is approximately 75 to 85 lines of
vertical
space in my setup.
I have a 1600x1200 screen, and an 18-point font, which gives me
93*41
terminal size. I find that just about right. (Like I said, I
maximize
everything, and anything significantly smaller than 18-point
font, I
find quite unreadable.)
Well this is probably the main reason of different spacing
tastes. I have literally twice as much vertical space fitting (
1920x1080 @ 9pt ), can imagine how it makes you favor more
compact style.
