At Sat, 22 Nov 2003 13:04:16 +0000,
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [1 <text/plain; us-ascii (quoted-printable)>]
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 09:02:19AM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 12:25:24PM +0100, Martin Quinson wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 08:56:04PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> > > > multi-gnome-terminal has several important bugs and no
> > > > reverse depends.
> > > >
> > > > Only issue is that we released it with woody.
> > > >
> > > > Are there any objections to removing it from sid/testing?
> > >
> > > Err, that's a bad argument, but I use it...
> > >
> > > Do you have any drop-in remplacement solution ? That may be a stupid
> > > question, but if the package is dropped and it exists a remplacement
> > > solution, a Replace + Provide dependency may be useful to users.
> >
> > What about plain old gnome-terminal? It supports tabs...
>
> It's had the gnome2 castration ("configuration is bad"), and is now
> unusable.
I'll go along with that. Its font selection, while fine for a word
processor, makes it hard to tell monospace fonts from the rest (and
there's no filter that I can find). And it doesn't seem to work so
well with emacs (out of the box, it doesn't recognise M-x, but mgt
does). This may be just me not trying to figure out the keybindings,
of course, but then it wasn't necessary with mgt. gnome-terminal 1,
without the tabs, worked fine; why the [EMAIL PROTECTED]&*() they felt the need
to fiddle with it I do not know.
As far as mgt bugs go, I posted a fix for one of the
important-level ones a month ago, but I don't see any progress on
it. I've not looked into the other bugs, but they may be fixable for
all I know.
The only other terminal program with tabs that I know of is
powershell, which works and is, IMHO, better than gnome-terminal in
its current incarnation. I still prefer mgt though.
.....Ron
--
Ron Murray ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://www.rjmx.net/~ron
GPG Public Key Fingerprint: F2C1 FC47 5EF7 0317 133C D66B 8ADA A3C4 D86C 74DE
