Re: gnome-terminal awfully slow

Havoc Pennington wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 08:09:07PM +0000, Bill Haneman wrote: 
Is VTE a compile-time option?  If so then I am concerned since we
haven't been able to verify the accessibility of VTE yet (at last check,
it failed to emit necessary events when text content or text caret

Of course it might be working but I think we should be very cautious
about swapping out components at build time (as opposed to
user-selectable runtime options) if we haven't yet verified their

Zvt is dead, I'm going to delete all support for it from HEAD.  vte is
a compile-time option in 2.2.
I'd support Havoc. Zvt development has been completely dead for months - no chance to be alive again
when vte's development is fearly active. I have a reason to judge so:-)

About slowness or cpu usage, Zvt was faily bad, too, I would say. When I did performance comparizon
i.e. with "ls -R /usr", there was not siginificant difference between zvt and vte. Eterm and, if I dare to
add, CDE's dtterm on Solaris were far better in speed of text-display and cpu usage.

Havoc, do you know where the difference could come?  Is't in gnome-terminal code or in vte?

desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list gnome org

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]