[gentoo-dev] Aterm ebuild README?

[gentoo-dev] Aterm ebuild README?

[Gontran]

Aterm is by far the best virtual terminal emulater around. ;] Here's a
bunch of what I had to do to get it to work after emerging:

# cd /dev/; MAKEDEV ptmx; MAKEDEV pty; cd -
# mkdir /dev/pts
# chmod u+s /usr/lib/misc/pt_chown
# vim /etc/fstab
	--- uncomment the /dev/pts line and prepend 'gid=5' to the 
	    column which has 'mode=620' in it. So it looks like:
	--- 'none /dev/pts devpts gid=5,mode=620 0 0'
	--- :wq
# mount /dev/pts

This I believe is a superset of things that have to be done to get the
aterms to work.  For instance I think that the 'MAKEDEV pty' was not 
required.

This would not have happened except for:
	http://aterm.sourceforge.net/README.Unix98PTY

Special thanks to Aaron Blew for the aterm ebuild.

Gontran

Re: [gentoo-dev] Aterm ebuild README?

[Collins Richey]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2001 16:15:00 -0700 Gontran <gontran@gontran.net> wrote:

> Aterm is by far the best virtual terminal emulater around. ;] Here's
> a
> bunch of what I had to do to get it to work after emerging:
> 
> # cd /dev/; MAKEDEV ptmx; MAKEDEV pty; cd -
> # mkdir /dev/pts
> # chmod u+s /usr/lib/misc/pt_chown
> # vim /etc/fstab
> 	--- uncomment the /dev/pts line and prepend 'gid=5' to the 
> 	    column which has 'mode=620' in it. So it looks like:
> 	--- 'none /dev/pts devpts gid=5,mode=620 0 0'
> 	--- :wq
> # mount /dev/pts
> 
> This I believe is a superset of things that have to be done to get
> the
> aterms to work.  For instance I think that the 'MAKEDEV pty' was not
> required.
> 
> This would not have happened except for:
> 	http://aterm.sourceforge.net/README.Unix98PTY
> 
> Special thanks to Aaron Blew for the aterm ebuild.

Just now reviewing some old emails.  A few questions:

1) Why, in your opinion, is aterm a better terminal emulator?
2) The extra work you describe is not necessary on _rc6 - pty....
devices are available; no need to mount pts.  Aterm starts aok.

-- 
Collins Richey
Denver Area
gentoo_rc6 xfce+sylpheed

Re: [gentoo-dev] Aterm ebuild README?

[Damon M. Conway]

>1) Why, in your opinion, is aterm a better terminal emulator?

I don't know about better but I use it because it has transparency and
tinting without being a resource hog.

>2) The extra work you describe is not necessary on _rc6 - pty....
>devices are available; no need to mount pts.  Aterm starts aok.

Yes, I've had no problems running aterm since I started with Gentoo on rc5
back in July.

kabau

--
"UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that
 would also stop you from doing clever things."  --Doug Gwyn

Re: [gentoo-dev] Aterm ebuild README?

[Gontran]

* Damon M. Conway (damon@chiba.3jane.net) wrote:
> >1) Why, in your opinion, is aterm a better terminal emulator?
> 
> I don't know about better but I use it because it has transparency and
> tinting without being a resource hog.
> 
Yes, because of this.  Oh and did he mention because it has transparancy and
tinting and is not a resource hog? 8)


> >2) The extra work you describe is not necessary on _rc6 - pty....
> >devices are available; no need to mount pts.  Aterm starts aok.
> 
> Yes, I've had no problems running aterm since I started with Gentoo on rc5
> back in July.

Yeah, I probably messed up my kit or somthing.  

Woohoo!
Gontran

Re: [gentoo-dev] Aterm ebuild README?

[Collins Richey]

On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 08:13:03 -0700 Gontran <gontran@gontran.net>
wrote:

> * Damon M. Conway (damon@chiba.3jane.net) wrote:
> > >1) Why, in your opinion, is aterm a better terminal emulator?
> > 
> > I don't know about better but I use it because it has transparency
> and
> > tinting without being a resource hog.
> > 
> Yes, because of this.  Oh and did he mention because it has
> transparancy and
> tinting and is not a resource hog? 8)
> 
> 
> > >2) The extra work you describe is not necessary on _rc6 - pty....
> > >devices are available; no need to mount pts.  Aterm starts aok.
> > 
> > Yes, I've had no problems running aterm since I started with
> Gentoo on rc5
> > back in July.
> 
> Yeah, I probably messed up my kit or somthing.  
> 

So, then is xterm a resource hog?  Aterm looks pretty, I doubt that I
could tell the difference in resource consumption.

-- 
Collins Richey
Denver Area
gentoo_rc6 xfce+sylpheed

Re: [gentoo-dev] Aterm ebuild README?

[Karl Trygve Kalleberg]

On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 19:49:57 -0600
Collins Richey <erichey2@home.com> wrote:


> So, then is xterm a resource hog?  Aterm looks pretty, I doubt that I
> could tell the difference in resource consumption.

karltk     431  0.1  0.5  3412 1476 tty1     S    16:12   0:00 aterm
root       433  0.4  0.9  5140 2396 pts/4    S    16:12   0:00 xterm


It is a well-known fact that xterm is a resource hog. In the above "test",
xterm has a black background, nothing fancy at all, while aterm runs a
tinted background (means that the root bitmap is visible as the background
in aterm, but with a tint. As you can clearly see, the tint color is blue
;).

Karl T

Re: [gentoo-dev] Aterm ebuild README?

[Collins Richey]

On Tue, 23 Oct 2001 16:15:30 +0200 Karl Trygve Kalleberg
<karltk@prosalg.no> wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 19:49:57 -0600
> Collins Richey <erichey2@home.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> > So, then is xterm a resource hog?  Aterm looks pretty, I doubt
> that I
> > could tell the difference in resource consumption.
> 
> karltk     431  0.1  0.5  3412 1476 tty1     S    16:12   0:00 aterm
> root       433  0.4  0.9  5140 2396 pts/4    S    16:12   0:00 xterm
> 
> 
> It is a well-known fact that xterm is a resource hog. In the above
> "test",
> xterm has a black background, nothing fancy at all, while aterm runs
> a
> tinted background (means that the root bitmap is visible as the
> background
> in aterm, but with a tint. As you can clearly see, the tint color is
> blue
> ;).

Thanks, I'm convinced.

-- 
Collins Richey
Denver Area
gentoo_rc6 xfce+sylpheed