I'd use tilix primarily if it didn't have a bug with unfocused window dimming that I just can't get over. Why that might matter is severely out of scope of this comment. Ultimately, what language something is written in shouldn't matter to the end user, but I'd give the win to Alacritty for being written in Rust. Alacritty is probably faster (they actually wrote a benchmark to test it, and something else being faster is considered a bug), but both should be fast enough to not notice. My st days got me hooked on tmux, so I disabled scrollback in Alacritty, and all my terminals are running tmux. I was using st, but wanted to find something that supported wayland natively. It looks like both support X and wayland, so that is a win for both. Do you think it is an antifeature? Go with Alacrity. Do you think the ability to display images is a feature? Go with Kitty. Third, it really depends on what you are looking for. Second, install both and see which you like. Linux is all about being volatile, so why limit myself to one window manager? While you can use your tmux configuration literally everywhere.įirst, note that you are asking for opinions, so there is no right answer. You dont have to use it if you dont want, I personally use it because it makes my life easier and also I dont use standalone WMs at all.Īnd even if I did use standalone WM, I would now get stuck with my standalone WM's configuration and I cant change my desktop environment. Tmux just makes it easier to manage your terminal sessions. If we start mixing both of them, we start losing features and make things more complex with our attempt to make them simpler.Īnd honestly I'm sure people will come and comment their strange complex solutions for each of the problems I mentioned, and they will completely miss the whole point that tmux just makes the whole process of detaching your terminal work from your WM. So you can have a command running even though you closed your terminal -accidentally or not-, and usually that's something you want when you're doing work. When you close your terminal, it doesnt close your session.Sure if you want something simple, just use WM, but not everyone wants something simple. WMs are good at managing process windows, not terminal sessions. Its whole job is to manage terminal sessions and windows, and its the best at doing exactly that.Naming your sessions is also a thing aside from window naming, and sessions are not binded to a WM pre-configured session, you name it however you want.I dont have to change my whole Desktop to change a terminal session, like, what if I still want my chrome windows but only change my terminal session? Not possible in a WM and when it is possible, it's much more complicated than it sounds. So, point is, you must use different keybindings in WM with vim to change windows. There's no such integration available in WMs because they're not aware of vim's existance or vica versa and even if its possible it would be much trickier to achieve that. It has great integration with vim - as in you can can use vim-windows along with tmux-windows and feel as if they're both the same thing.you can very easily configure to open the exact same windows you want (like make a function "tmux-work" that opens a work related session with very specific windows, that's harder to do and configure in a WM because its job is not to deal with terminal stuff, but to manage windows).If you're using Wayland, foot is outstanding. With that said, they're both fine projects. Right now I've got to have alacritty graphics support detection commented out, because the method used to discover it in the graphics branch locks up the head of master. Kitty feels a bit more well thought-out with regards to discoverability and capability reporting. Alacritty does seem to start faster.Īlacritty's emoji support compared to Kitty's is garbage, though this might be due to misconfiguration on my part. In my experience, you have to go out of your way to generate cases where alacritty is faster to display. Kitty's Unicode input widget is pretty awesome.Īlacritty can be faster at times, but is usually pretty comparable. I don't love the alacritty implementation of Sixel, but I can't say it's "wrong". The former eats more bandwidth, but is also far more powerful. Kitty uses its own graphics protocol for bitmaps, while alacritty looks like it will use a somewhat unique interpretation of Sixel (assuming the ayosec/graphics branch is merged). This leads to more regular appearance and more useful geometry. Kitty draws the quadrant and sextant Unicode glyphs rather than taking them from the font. I've dealt with both at a fairly deep level, and interacted with the maintainers. finished initializing glyph cache in 0.I'm the author of Notcurses, a TUI library. "/home/mbc/.config/alacritty/alacritty.yml"
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |