OT: Why planet gnome doesn't tell all the truth?

[Benedikt Meurer]

Timothy White wrote:
> As my contribution, I tried this on my machine, with rxvt,
> xfce4-terminal, eterm, and xvt
> My CPU is always at 100% cpu usage, due to F at H, and I ensured the file
> was cached. I ran the test a few times in each terminal, and basically
> did a quick mental averaging. All tests are under XFCE4 (SVN)
> 
> rxvt (version 2.6.4) ~0.99s
> xterm ($ xterm -version gives XTerm(203)) ~8.99s
> xvt (Comes up as xterm-r6) ~20s
> eterm (0.9.2) ~1.5s (We get some sort or char corruption though)
> xfce4-terminal (0.2.5svn-19862) ~3.5s
> 
> So why is rxvt faster? Does it not cache as much scroll back? How can
> I get the size of it's scroll back?

More interesting: What does these numbers tell? Sure it's great
marketing for GNOME 2.14, but wouldn't it be more important to finally
commit pending patches (some of them are older than 2 years) for VTE
(the terminal library used by xfce4-terminal aka Terminal and GNOME
Terminal) to reduce the amount of possible crashes (i.e. VTE will still
crash out-of-the-box in a multiscreen environment)?

> Thanks
> Tim

Just my 0.02€,

Benedikt