projectpolt.blogg.se - Alacritty vs kitty

Alacritty vs kitty windows#

The only real benefit of tmux that I see for me is multiplexing a ssh connection instead of sshing from many terminals. Because kakoune works in daemon mode, if I mistakenly close my terminal I can reconnect to the session.

Alacritty vs kitty windows#

I can tile windows in my wm and I can save sessions with other daemons. At work on WSL I use tmux for instance.Īlacritty is very simple to configure, otherwise I don’t think it’s noticeably different to another terminal. However I prefer tmux since it is more portable. With Kakoune my window manager does everything so I use one set of keybindings.įor this reason I don’t use Kitty but if I was in an environment without a nice display manager I might, simply because it has so many great features. To focus on the right window in Vim + tmux (which is a combo I have seen plenty) I might have to switch focus from browser to tmux, then to a different tmux pane, then to a different vim split. If I use kitty or tmux it just adds another layer I have to get through. If I use my window manager only then I use the same keybindings to navigate between workspaces, windows and tabs for all my applications (except the browser unfortunately). I’m a big believer in the idea of having one tool do one thing well. I installed Pop!_OS 22.04 and the UI is super responsive (I really think it will decrease the time even further).In my personal setup I just use urxvt and a tiling window manager.

If you kill one terminal (maybe something did freeze) - the other ones all go with it.īut currently I think these things aren't an issue for me and I probably can live with them.

I don't think there's a way to run server in background, therefore 1st terminal opens with regular speed (0.57s).

It's about as fast as other server terminals ( gnome-terminal, xfce4-terminal). Now the terminal (fully customized) opens in less than 0.2s (0.16-0.18)! That's 0.4s or 3.3 times faster than my first timings. Kitty instances by using the -instance-group option. This allows kitty to share a single sprite cache on the GPUĪnd also reduces startup time. Will instead create a new top-level window in the existing kitty If specified only a single instance of kitty will run. And to create "the main" (the easiest) group, I only had to add 3 more chars: kitty -1: You can create any number of groups in which terminals share some stuff (I don't have any specifics). Also, I fortunately found that kitty does support "server-client" architecture. And after some research, I found that (probably on a lot more speedy PC) some people manage to open kitty in 0.2s (0.1s to load OpenGL and 0.1s for the rest). And looking at how it improves, I don't think anything can substitute it for me. I found out that only kitty (among those who I tested) can support ligatures. I use ranger a lot (want to switch to lf) and 99% I open it with a shortcut bound to kitty ranger command. start alacritty -e ranger -cmd 'shell echo "$(date +%%s.%N)-$(cat. start kitty ranger -cmd 'shell echo "$(date +%%s.%N)-$(cat.

alacritty without ranger: 0.22-0.28 seconds ( now we're talking).

Run ranger using kitty with root (0 conf.) and alacritty (cargo crate is user-wide 0 conf.): After that, I'll check my timings again (perhaps they'll improve).

My config: Laptop with i7-8550U, SSD, Ubuntu 20.04. start $terminal - sh -c 'echo "$(date +%s.%N)-$(cat. Here's a MWE: terminal=kitty # gnome-terminalĭate +%s.%N >. Maybe someone can share their timings, so I can compare mine to something (I didn't find anything about this issue on the Internet). I want some suggestions for either speeding up window open process or some terminal alternatives that open faster (I use kitty for several years now). And it does bother me a bit that it takes so much time to open (I want it to be close to instant, like UI elements are responding to mouse/keyboard events). I just checked my timings: it takes about 0.41-0.45 seconds to open a new gnome-terminal window and about 0.55-0.65 seconds to open kitty.