3 ms·

Foot is excellent. Wayland only, but it is very fast to launch, and uses few resources. I love it.

ac29 1y ago
Yep this is my current favorite too. I liked ghostty when I evaluated it, but for some reason it uses an order of magnitude more memory than foot to display a single, empty terminal.
- tristan957 1y ago
  Ghostty uses GTK + GPU rendering while Foot uses Wayland primitives and CPU rendering.
  - colordrops 1y ago
    I've seen zero performance issues with foot.
    - tristan957 1y ago
      My comment was not to imply that Ghostty performed better than Foot. Foot is a great terminal.
colordrops 1y ago
Foot is the best. Love ctrl-shift-o to open up links
RVuRnvbM2e 1y ago
I'm quite confused why this article tests foot v1.16.2, which is two years old at this point. The latest version is 1.25.0. By contrast, the tested version of ghostty v1.2.3 is two weeks old.
- aorth 1y ago
  Good point. I just submitted a pull request with new data for foot 1.25.0 https://github.com/jquast/ucs-detect/pull/17 https://github.com/jquast/ucs-detect/pull/17. The test suite is really easy to run (and fast, foot rocks!).
  - moderation 1y ago
    Similarly kitty is at 0.44.0 [0], zutty at 0.16.0 [1] 0.https://github.com/kovidgoyal/kitty/releases/tag/v0.44.0 https://github.com/kovidgoyal/kitty/releases/tag/v0.44.0 1. https://git.hq.sig7.se/zutty.git https://git.hq.sig7.se/zutty.git
bdunks 1y ago
I agree. I started using Foot based on a recommendation from the notcurses library author, who has deep expertise in terminal emulation and collaborates with maintainers. A tip for new users: The default theme is a bit harsh. I was able to port my Alacritty theme and other config by feeding the config file to an LLM (along with the Foot documentation). It generated a configuration that was 80-90% correct and only required about five minutes of manual fixes. The result is now visually identical to my Alacritty setup, but Foot feels faster.

ac29 1y ago

Yep this is my current favorite too. I liked ghostty when I evaluated it, but for some reason it uses an order of magnitude more memory than foot to display a single, empty terminal.

tristan957 1y ago
Ghostty uses GTK + GPU rendering while Foot uses Wayland primitives and CPU rendering.
- colordrops 1y ago
  I've seen zero performance issues with foot.
  - tristan957 1y ago
    My comment was not to imply that Ghostty performed better than Foot. Foot is a great terminal.

colordrops 1y ago

Foot is the best. Love ctrl-shift-o to open up links

RVuRnvbM2e 1y ago

I'm quite confused why this article tests foot v1.16.2, which is two years old at this point. The latest version is 1.25.0. By contrast, the tested version of ghostty v1.2.3 is two weeks old.

aorth 1y ago
Good point. I just submitted a pull request with new data for foot 1.25.0 https://github.com/jquast/ucs-detect/pull/17 https://github.com/jquast/ucs-detect/pull/17. The test suite is really easy to run (and fast, foot rocks!).
- moderation 1y ago
  Similarly kitty is at 0.44.0 [0], zutty at 0.16.0 [1] 0.https://github.com/kovidgoyal/kitty/releases/tag/v0.44.0 https://github.com/kovidgoyal/kitty/releases/tag/v0.44.0 1. https://git.hq.sig7.se/zutty.git https://git.hq.sig7.se/zutty.git

bdunks 1y ago

I agree. I started using Foot based on a recommendation from the notcurses library author, who has deep expertise in terminal emulation and collaborates with maintainers. A tip for new users: The default theme is a bit harsh. I was able to port my Alacritty theme and other config by feeding the config file to an LLM (along with the Foot documentation). It generated a configuration that was 80-90% correct and only required about five minutes of manual fixes. The result is now visually identical to my Alacritty setup, but Foot feels faster.