View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
metalac Apprentice
Joined: 21 Aug 2002 Posts: 191 Location: Seattle, USA
|
Posted: Fri Aug 23, 2002 8:53 pm Post subject: MAC OSX like terminal for linux |
|
|
Ok since I'm in the mood for posting I guess I could post this question.
I've been using Mac OSX at work for a while and completely fell in love with it's terminal and it's transparecy or should i say opaqueness (run spell check on this). I was wondering if there is anything like that for Linux since all of these "transparent" linux teriminals suck big time compared to MacOSX.
p.s.
apple should maybe switch it to open source |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pjp Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002 Posts: 20067
|
Posted: Fri Aug 23, 2002 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would be curious to find out what the Apple terminal is derived from, or if it is from scratch.
Quote: | opaqueness
\O*paque"ness\, n. The state or quality of being impervious to light; opacity. --Dr. H. More.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
opaqueness
n 1: not permitting the passage of light [syn: opacity] [ant: transparency] 2: incomprehensibility resulting from obscurity of meaning [syn: opacity] 3: the quality of being opaque to a degree; the degree to which something reduces the passage of light [syn: opacity] [ant: clearness]
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University |
Spelled properly, though I think you may be thinking of translucence. Quote: | translucence
\Trans*lu"cence\, Translucency \Trans*lu"cen*cy\, n. The quality or state of being translucent; clearness; partial transparency. --Sir T. Browne.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
translucence
n : the quality of allowing light to pass diffusely [syn: translucency, semitransparency]
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University |
By the way, www.dictionary.com is handy _________________ Quis separabit? Quo animo? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
rac Bodhisattva
Joined: 30 May 2002 Posts: 6553 Location: Japanifornia
|
Posted: Fri Aug 23, 2002 9:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kanuslupus wrote: | I would be curious to find out what the Apple terminal is derived from, or if it is from scratch. |
I have no idea, but I would expect that the fancy partial-light-coloring-shading-thingamajob-stuff that you Websters are discussing is likely more an artifact of Aqua's Quartz Compositor than it is the actual terminal program itself. _________________ For every higher wall, there is a taller ladder |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Pigeon Guru
Joined: 21 Jun 2002 Posts: 307
|
Posted: Fri Aug 23, 2002 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What exactly does OSX's terminal do different from a transparent Eterm or aterm? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
metalac Apprentice
Joined: 21 Aug 2002 Posts: 191 Location: Seattle, USA
|
Posted: Sat Aug 24, 2002 1:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well Apple acctually calls it opaqueness which i guess reduces the intensity of the background color so that the color of the windows behind can go trough with variying levels. So it can be completely transparent or dimmed or maybe something in between.
The thing that is different is that not just the background (wallpaper) is showed, but all other windows. So if you have terminal open and the browser is open behind it you will be able to see browser trough it. Also when you move it around the screen it's trully transparent. You know how in Linux when you move it it still shows the old image from the old part of screen and only when you set it to the new part of the screen it gets updated, while in Mac the transparent image follows the window. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Pigeon Guru
Joined: 21 Jun 2002 Posts: 307
|
Posted: Sat Aug 24, 2002 2:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | Well Apple acctually calls it opaqueness which i guess reduces the intensity of the background color so that the color of the windows behind can go trough with variying levels. So it can be completely transparent or dimmed or maybe something in between. |
aterm -tr -trsb -sh 50
Eterm -O --shade 50
Man pages are gud. =)
You can also change the color etc. of the tinting, but I don't know how. Check the man pages.
Quote: | The thing that is different is that not just the background (wallpaper) is showed, but all other windows. So if you have terminal open and the browser is open behind it you will be able to see browser trough it. Also when you move it around the screen it's trully transparent. You know how in Linux when you move it it still shows the old image from the old part of screen and only when you set it to the new part of the screen it gets updated, while in Mac the transparent image follows the window. |
This is actually more a function of the toolkit/wm than the terminal program. Won't have this on linux until the qt/gtk folks get around to it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Pigeon Guru
Joined: 21 Jun 2002 Posts: 307
|
Posted: Sat Aug 24, 2002 2:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
And yeah- "opaque" means a solid background, ie, nothing passes through at all. If it lets any of the background through at all, even if it darkens it tremendously, then it's transparent, not opaque. =) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Naan Yaar Bodhisattva
Joined: 27 Jun 2002 Posts: 1549
|
Posted: Sat Aug 24, 2002 3:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
What the poster is referring to seems to be "true" transparency rather than pseudo-transparency as done by aterm and Eterm. The latter just blend in the image in the root window.
Also, opacity = (1.0 - transparency), so either specification is valid to specify blending .
Pigeon wrote: | Quote: | Well Apple acctually calls it opaqueness which i guess reduces the intensity of the background color so that the color of the windows behind can go trough with variying levels. So it can be completely transparent or dimmed or maybe something in between. |
aterm -tr -trsb -sh 50
Eterm -O --shade 50
Man pages are gud. =)
You can also change the color etc. of the tinting, but I don't know how. Check the man pages.
Quote: | The thing that is different is that not just the background (wallpaper) is showed, but all other windows. So if you have terminal open and the browser is open behind it you will be able to see browser trough it. Also when you move it around the screen it's trully transparent. You know how in Linux when you move it it still shows the old image from the old part of screen and only when you set it to the new part of the screen it gets updated, while in Mac the transparent image follows the window. |
This is actually more a function of the toolkit/wm than the terminal program. Won't have this on linux until the qt/gtk folks get around to it. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
NU-Slacker n00b
Joined: 18 Apr 2002 Posts: 69 Location: Northwestern University
|
Posted: Sat Aug 24, 2002 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[troll]
Umm...
Am I missing something?
[/troll] _________________ "There are 10 types of people: those that understand binary and those who dont." |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Naan Yaar Bodhisattva
Joined: 27 Jun 2002 Posts: 1549
|
Posted: Sat Aug 24, 2002 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I must be missing something here How does tcsh help (even though it is a worthy shell)?
NU-Slacker wrote: | [troll]
Umm...
Am I missing something?
[/troll] |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
pjp Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002 Posts: 20067
|
Posted: Sat Aug 24, 2002 11:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
NU-Slacker wrote: | [troll]
Umm...
Am I missing something?
[/troll] | Without explaining how that addresses the issue, I think we may be missing something. _________________ Quis separabit? Quo animo? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
rac Bodhisattva
Joined: 30 May 2002 Posts: 6553 Location: Japanifornia
|
Posted: Sat Aug 24, 2002 11:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
NU-Slacker wrote: | [troll]
Umm...
Am I missing something?
[/troll] | Without explaining how that addresses the issue, I think three may be missing something.
All I can think of is that OS X's default shell is tcsh, and so switching one's shell to tcsh would make the workings of the stuff inside the terminal window similar. But if that's the case, why call it a troll? I don't see what's so funny or ironic about it. Maybe talking about killed cats has wounded my sense of humor today. _________________ For every higher wall, there is a taller ladder |
|
Back to top |
|
|
wickidpisa n00b
Joined: 21 Jul 2002 Posts: 27
|
Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2002 9:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Transparency in OSX is a major resource hog. I remember a friend showing me a developers release of OSX with a feature turned on that showed you what parts of the screen were being redrawn, and if you moved anything transparent over video playback, OSX went beserk and started to redraw the entire screen constantly. It would take major changes in the design of XFree86 to make it possible, and few people think that it is important enough to waste as much time and bloat that it will add to the project. If someone could figure out a way to add it without making X perform as badly as OSX does, I would gladly use the feature, but I doubt that will happen. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
markdrago n00b
Joined: 23 Jul 2002 Posts: 4
|
Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2002 2:46 pm Post subject: Where do the resources go? |
|
|
wickidpisa wrote: | Transparency in OSX is a major resource hog. |
I don't really understand where all the resources go? What I mean to say is that I'm running a computer with a processor that is twice the speed of my last one (800MHz -> 1.6GHz) and with twice the memory (128MB -> 256MB) and I don't feel like I have twice the power of my last computer. I believe this is due to the fact that I don't really use my computer for anything that necessitates twice the power. I read webpages, newsgroups, and email. I listen to mp3s and CDs. I watch an occasional movie, send IMs...maybe write something up in a text editor. But, that's exactly what I used to do. So, I should have all this computing power left over.....why not use it to make my working environment look really really good? It's for this reason that I've been itching to get my hands on a mac...but, they're just too damned expensive for a college kid. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
maw Apprentice
Joined: 25 Aug 2002 Posts: 175 Location: Nottingham, UK
|
Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2002 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
wickidpisa wrote: | Transparency in OSX is a major resource hog. I remember a friend showing me a developers release of OSX with a feature turned on that showed you what parts of the screen were being redrawn, and if you moved anything transparent over video playback, OSX went beserk and started to redraw the entire screen constantly. It would take major changes in the design of XFree86 to make it possible, and few people think that it is important enough to waste as much time and bloat that it will add to the project. If someone could figure out a way to add it without making X perform as badly as OSX does, I would gladly use the feature, but I doubt that will happen. |
Transparency is unfortunately a pretty resource-intensive thing to do. Suddenly, you're not just drawing exposed parts of windows, you've got the potential need to draw all of all the windows, even the ones hidden behind other ones, because they might need to be alpha-blended into the ones in front of them. Even if you use hardware to do the alpha compositing, as Windows XP is capable of on some systems, you're still slowing things down by drawing the images to pass to the card to composite. It's always going to be slow, but as it's X I'm sure we'll be able to turn it off if we want. _________________ Your Gentoo woll sle me sodenly!
I may the beaute of it not sustene
(to misquote Chaucer) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
rac Bodhisattva
Joined: 30 May 2002 Posts: 6553 Location: Japanifornia
|
Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2002 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Now that OS X 10.2 (Jaguar) is out, I can't see any reason why Apple would be angry if I were to mention that Quartz Extreme will be able to move a lot of this work out to the video card, in my understanding. _________________ For every higher wall, there is a taller ladder |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fmalabre Guru
Joined: 19 Jun 2002 Posts: 376 Location: Chicago
|
Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2002 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
rac wrote: | Now that OS X 10.2 (Jaguar) is out, I can't see any reason why Apple would be angry if I were to mention that Quartz Extreme will be able to move a lot of this work out to the video card, in my understanding. |
According to their site http://www.apple.com/macosx/jaguar/quartzextreme.html, the perf gain is enormous.
Graphic cards should be able to do most of the work for you anyway (I mean recent ones). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
metalac Apprentice
Joined: 21 Aug 2002 Posts: 191 Location: Seattle, USA
|
Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2002 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
well i ran the OSX ona G3 500 with no major problems as far as the redrawing stuff goes although I'm sure it's a major resource hog is like most of the "cool" gui stuff that is around today. Just look at WinXP or KDE when it's set to all effects. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fmalabre Guru
Joined: 19 Jun 2002 Posts: 376 Location: Chicago
|
Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2002 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
metalac wrote: | well i ran the OSX ona G3 500 with no major problems as far as the redrawing stuff goes although I'm sure it's a major resource hog is like most of the "cool" gui stuff that is around today. Just look at WinXP or KDE when it's set to all effects. |
I agree. If you start setting all the effects on, it would be the same with KDE, Windows and Gnome.
Apple did a very good job on this OS! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dioxmat Bodhisattva
Joined: 04 May 2002 Posts: 709 Location: /home/mat
|
Posted: Tue Aug 27, 2002 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
btw, the transparency stuff can be done with Xfree using XdirectFB.
Have a look at http://www.directfb.org/xdirectfb.xml .
there is a [masked] ebuild for it. _________________ mat |
|
Back to top |
|
|
war n00b
Joined: 27 Apr 2002 Posts: 13
|
Posted: Sun Sep 01, 2002 9:42 pm Post subject: Dude... |
|
|
Dude, that's GORGEOUS!
I've never been as impressed by translucent XP or OSX shots; that's like the nicest desktop I've ever seen. The MOVIE is translucent!!
Though, seeing it stutter in Real Life is usually enough to kill the infatuation.
So, XdirectFB is actually an XFree86 replacement, or something? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
war n00b
Joined: 27 Apr 2002 Posts: 13
|
Posted: Mon Sep 02, 2002 2:32 am Post subject: Ah..... |
|
|
A patch, I see...
I've got it installed... How can I make GDM use it automatically? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
arkane l33t
Joined: 30 Apr 2002 Posts: 918 Location: Phoenix, AZ
|
Posted: Tue Sep 03, 2002 10:36 pm Post subject: Re: Dude... |
|
|
war wrote: | Dude, that's GORGEOUS!
So, XdirectFB is actually an XFree86 replacement, or something? |
More like a replacement for XF86_SVGA (for example) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kappax Apprentice
Joined: 30 Aug 2002 Posts: 273 Location: The Moon
|
Posted: Thu Oct 03, 2002 5:47 am Post subject: Re: Ah..... |
|
|
war wrote: | A patch, I see...
I've got it installed... How can I make GDM use it automatically? |
how did you get it installed ?
how long did it take and how hard is it to config> |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bytal Apprentice
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 Posts: 170 Location: NYC, USA
|
Posted: Thu Oct 03, 2002 9:18 pm Post subject: HOW-TO Please |
|
|
I would love a walkthrough, HOW-TO or at least a pointer to the manuals and pages that I can check for gentoo or regular linux distro installation. TAIA _________________ Of all the things I lost, I miss my mind the most. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|