4 ms·

I have news for whoever did that screen shot: 256 colours is not "all colours" nowadays. (-: There was a real push, which must be approaching a decade ago at

by JdeBP 3y ago

I have news for whoever did that screen shot: 256 colours is not "all colours" nowadays. (-: There was a real push, which must be approaching a decade ago at this point, to get all terminal emulators able to understand the ITU-T T.416 control sequences for direct 24-bit RGB colour. Even if they implement it really badly, and some do, almost everyone tries to support this colour system now. See the screenshot of the old syscons FreeBSD kernel built-in terminal emulator at https://tty0.social/@JdeBP/110424206935120790 https://tty0.social/@JdeBP/110424206935120790 for what I mean by really badly. It still does understand the control sequences, though.

wvenable 3y ago
256 colors ought to be enough for anybody.
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  That’s like 254 too many.
  - CSSer 3y ago
    Sounds like writing code in notepad.
    - fnordpiglet 3y ago
      Sounds like terminals as they existed for most of the life of computing. Honestly I’ve never found color added that much to my experience with a terminal and often ended up with poor contrast for certain things and a bunch of time tweaking color palettes. Since eMacs and vi has been two color for a lot of its life, I’d say it’s more like writing code with pretty bog standard code editing tools.
tambourine_man 3y ago
Apple didn’t get the memo it seems. Terminal.app has been unchanged in many, many years. I still stubbornly use it as my daily driver for some probably terrible reason.
- akkartik 3y ago
  I think the reasons are often good: https://lobste.rs/s/fikvmn/farewell_macos#c_swz7p7 https://lobste.rs/s/fikvmn/farewell_macos#c_swz7p7
- dilap 3y ago
  I've tried a gazillion terminals but I always come back to the built-in Terminal.app. I appreciate that it has no bugs (that I know of).
- WesolyKubeczek 3y ago
  With iTerm.app, getting a message that "your system ran out of application memory" is a reason for me to stick to the Terminal.app. It's a 96 GiB of RAM machine, for chrissake! That ought to be enough for everybody!
  - michaelmcdonald 3y ago
    How on earth have you had iTerm use up so much memory it's given you an error? I've been using iTerm for years on some absolute crap machines, abusing iTerm with tmux and numerous customizations, and have never received that error.
    - 0x457 3y ago
      Unlimited scroll buffer + compiling something large with verbose logs non-stop?
      - awestroke 3y ago
        Well just limit the scroll buffer then
        inkyoto 3y ago
        Such advice is not helpful. The infinite scroll buffer is useful for some people with long lived terminal sessions, and that helps them with their respective workflows and habits. I am one of them. The parent ran out of memory with iTerm not because of the infinite scrolling buffer but because of iTerm having memory leaks. The memory leaks in iTerm used to be a big issue, and it appears they still have not fully fixed. Other terminal apps can swell up to over 1Gb of the RSS, yet they do not crash. Provided there is sufficient RAM available, the inifinte scrolling can prove to be benefecial.

by JdeBP 3y ago

wvenable 3y ago

256 colors ought to be enough for anybody.

fnordpiglet 3y ago
That’s like 254 too many.
- CSSer 3y ago
  Sounds like writing code in notepad.
  - fnordpiglet 3y ago
    Sounds like terminals as they existed for most of the life of computing. Honestly I’ve never found color added that much to my experience with a terminal and often ended up with poor contrast for certain things and a bunch of time tweaking color palettes. Since eMacs and vi has been two color for a lot of its life, I’d say it’s more like writing code with pretty bog standard code editing tools.

tambourine_man 3y ago

Apple didn’t get the memo it seems. Terminal.app has been unchanged in many, many years. I still stubbornly use it as my daily driver for some probably terrible reason.

akkartik 3y ago
I think the reasons are often good: https://lobste.rs/s/fikvmn/farewell_macos#c_swz7p7 https://lobste.rs/s/fikvmn/farewell_macos#c_swz7p7
dilap 3y ago
I've tried a gazillion terminals but I always come back to the built-in Terminal.app. I appreciate that it has no bugs (that I know of).
WesolyKubeczek 3y ago
With iTerm.app, getting a message that "your system ran out of application memory" is a reason for me to stick to the Terminal.app. It's a 96 GiB of RAM machine, for chrissake! That ought to be enough for everybody!
- michaelmcdonald 3y ago
  How on earth have you had iTerm use up so much memory it's given you an error? I've been using iTerm for years on some absolute crap machines, abusing iTerm with tmux and numerous customizations, and have never received that error.
  - 0x457 3y ago
    Unlimited scroll buffer + compiling something large with verbose logs non-stop?
    - awestroke 3y ago
      Well just limit the scroll buffer then
      - inkyoto 3y ago
        Such advice is not helpful. The infinite scroll buffer is useful for some people with long lived terminal sessions, and that helps them with their respective workflows and habits. I am one of them. The parent ran out of memory with iTerm not because of the infinite scrolling buffer but because of iTerm having memory leaks. The memory leaks in iTerm used to be a big issue, and it appears they still have not fully fixed. Other terminal apps can swell up to over 1Gb of the RSS, yet they do not crash. Provided there is sufficient RAM available, the inifinte scrolling can prove to be benefecial.