From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-14) on finch.gentoo.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DATE_IN_PAST_12_24,
	DMARC_MISSING,INVALID_DATE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0
Received: from janus.prosalg.no ([213.236.139.1] helo=io.adm.prosalg.no)
	by cvs.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 3.30 #1)
	id 15w2M7-0003y7-00
	for gentoo-dev@cvs.gentoo.org; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 08:16:35 -0600
Received: from b223a.studby.ntnu.no ([129.241.126.223] helo=motvind)
	by io.adm.prosalg.no with asmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian))
	id 15w2E3-0004v4-00
	for <gentoo-dev@cvs.gentoo.org>; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 16:08:15 +0200
From: Karl Trygve Kalleberg <karltk@prosalg.no>
To: gentoo-dev@cvs.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Aterm ebuild README?
Message-Id: <20011023161530.124ef87f.karltk@prosalg.no>
In-Reply-To: <20011022194957.5b16cb48.erichey2@home.com>
References: <20010701161500.A30342@potre>
	<20011022050626.6470609d.erichey2@home.com>
	<200110221444.f9MEiQs70394@chiba.3jane.net>
	<20011022081303.A2474@potre>
	<20011022194957.5b16cb48.erichey2@home.com>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.6.2 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: gentoo-dev-admin@cvs.gentoo.org
Errors-To: gentoo-dev-admin@cvs.gentoo.org
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@cvs.gentoo.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: gentoo-dev@cvs.gentoo.org
X-Reply-To: karltk@gentoo.org
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev-request@cvs.gentoo.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@cvs.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://cvs.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev>,
	<mailto:gentoo-dev-request@cvs.gentoo.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux development list <gentoo-dev.cvs.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://cvs.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev>,
	<mailto:gentoo-dev-request@cvs.gentoo.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://cvs.gentoo.org/pipermail/gentoo-dev/>
Date: Tue Oct 23 08:17:02 2001
X-Original-Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 16:15:30 +0200
X-Archives-Salt: 9c91a746-0194-46d9-81d8-2ea827e3b40e
X-Archives-Hash: b1d6054cd3d6ea8dee3cce4e2e8d930e

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