2 ms·
Aside from whether they were right to remove it and whether this was communicated properly or not, can anyone explain me what's so useful about having a transp
by tripzilch 14y ago
Aside from whether they were right to remove it and whether this was communicated properly or not,
can anyone explain me what's so useful about having a transparent terminal?
I agree that it looks pretty and sci-fi, which is a fine reason, but from the general backlash I get a feeling there's more to it than that. I personally always found semi-transparent terminals harder to read, and prefer a plain dark background (I've tried subtle textures, but found them to be more effort to get right over how much they improved visual style).
I'm assuming it might be something about the ability to read what's behind the terminal window? But every time I encountered such a situation, the letters on the terminal were interfering with the info behind it (probably a browser), and even if I could make out what it said, a quick alt-tab switch back and forth was so much easier.
The only real advantage I can think of might be the ability to roughly determine what application is running behind the terminal, or whether there is in fact an application running or not. Which is nice but most WMs have other ways of indicating that information (taskbar, etc).
- tripzilch 14y agoPlucked a few reasons I found here and there in this discussion in case anyone's interested, turns out I may have underestimated the functionality of pretty & shiny! <btilly> "I've used that feature myself so that I'd be constantly looking at my daughter's happy face rather than the blank background of my many terminals. No utilitarian purpose? Perhaps. But a very real psychological one!" <towolf> "When I stare at opaque terminals all day I get severely perceptually understimulated to the point that I fear becoming an automaton."