this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2023
26 points (93.3% liked)
Linux
4969 readers
60 users here now
A community for everything relating to the linux operating system
Also check out !linux_memes@programming.dev
Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I used a number of terminals in the last decade and even 2 GPU accelerated ones, Kitty and Alacritty for about 2 years or so. Now I'm back on Konsole. I never saw a difference in their speed, because the terminal speed doesn't matter. Maybe there are edge cases, that's not something I discount. But for writing code or editing text files, or listing files with the shell, I never saw a difference or advancement for having a faster terminal.
However, where they differ greatly is in their customization, feature set and what dependencies they have.
Yeah. I've had issues on OS X in the past, since its Terminal is anything but optimized. I have occasionally had issues with extremely verbose programs where the lion's share of execution time was actually spent displaying output in the terminal. Piping output to a file instead made execution lightning fast. This surprised me at the time because I figured it would be buffered and each process would run on its own CPU core.
Not sure I've ever had this problem on Linux though.
I found my terminal speed to not matter when most of what I do with it is over SSH administrating various boxes.
Probably matters more for riced up vim users and TUI fans since you need a lot of responsiveness.
I am a Vim user and TUI fan. It does not make any difference in my experience to use a fast GPU based terminal. Maybe something like st might startup faster, but that's it.
I can tell the difference in a JavaScript terminal and a native one, but yeah. Urxvt is fast enough. So is the gnome terminal