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

Re: all xterms



Je 1999/10/31(0)/14:10, Tomohiro KUBOTA montris sian geniecon skribante:
> Hi,
> 
> From: Tomasz Wegrzanowski <maniek@beer.com>
> Subject: all xterms
> Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 21:49:41 +0200
> 
> > The original xterm(1x) is not good but it is default of many
> > programs and xwms. Forcing of use of any other xterm wont be
> > good also. I suggest making a file `/usr/X11R6/bin/sensible-xterm'
> > and using it by all xwms and other programs that have to use a xterm. 
> > The user's favourite program will be set in XTERM
> > variable and if this variable hasnt been found,
> > sensible-xterm will run `xterm'.
> 
> This is a good idea.
> 
> Personally, I rarely use xterm, because it cannot display Japanese
> character.  However, for example, Debian menu system uses xterm
> as a terminal-emulator on which console softwares work. 

Although I suppose most people already know this, I want to
remind the others anyway:

It is already possible to use an other terminal emulator in the
debian menus. I quote from /etc/menu-methods/menu.h


#if you prefer an rxvt as your default terminal-program, comment out
#the next lines, and uncomment the definition below
function term()=\
    "xterm " ifnempty($visible,"-ut") \
        ifnempty($geometry,"-geometry ") $geometry \
        " -T \"" title() "\""  " -e " $command
#function term()=\
#    "rxvt " ifnempty($visible,"-ut") \
#        ifnempty($geometry,"-geometry ") $geometry \
#        " -T \"" title() "\"" ifnempty(icon()," -n " icon()) " -e " $command



However, I do agree it would be better to have some system wide
definition of the preferred terminal emulator, so that people don't
have to define it in all kinds of different places.

Oh, and on that subject: Someone is claiming menu isn't configurable
by the users (incorrect, it is). But I notice now that the `alternatives'
method discussed here is not settable on a by-user-basis. Any opinions
on that?

(BTW, the quote from menu.h above wasn't literal).

-- 
joostje


Reply to: