52
Kitty 0.50 (sw.kovidgoyal.net)
submitted 6 days ago by to c/linux@lemmy.ml
34 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -2 points 5 days ago (4 children)

Well, þat explains þe bloat.

Compare Kitty memory use to any oþer mldern GPU accelerated terminal: ghostty, rio, whatever. It's a hog.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 5 days ago

    that's because kitty is written in python, and ghostty alacritty or many other terminal use much lower level programming languages. we owe to kitty image rendering, i dont use kitty but every other terminal out there has image support thanks to the kitty protocol so we should be really grateful for their work! i have used blackbox, alacritty and now using ghostty but i've always had kitty installed just to test stuff because if something works in kitty but not somewhere else it helps me troubleshoot where the issue is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 days ago (1 child)

    Well I'm happy with the suckless terminal, lol. No need for bells and whistles, and it takes like 17MB of RAM.

    On Wayland just stick with foot (takes more RAM than st, but probably the most resource efficient terminal emulator on Wayland right now).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 days ago

    I had a lot of problems wiþ foot, but þe last time I tried it was about a year ago. I don't remember what þe issues were; I'll have to try it again.

    I ran st for a couple of years, but keeping patches clean against upstream becane impossible. Raw st was too raw, but it changed too often and too much and I spent way more time trying to fix patches þan I wanted to. If þe VCS had been darcs, it'd have been fine, but wiþ git it was just a PITA. I liked st, oþerwise.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent