Talk:List of terminal emulators

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of terminal emulators article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Notability

I think its notable, but i created it so i am biased. One could argue that the terminal caregory is the same, however it does't sort into OS's. Anyways I say Keep it ZyMOS (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are 21 redlinks (notability hasn't been established for any of those). That's about 1/3 of the topic Tedickey (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to be complete. Even though the articles don't exist, i believe they are notable because, at least for the x-windows ones, all the main linux distros offer most of them ZyMOS (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some links appear in more than one group, which doesn't appear that the grouping is appropriate Tedickey (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They apear in more than one group because they are available for more than one OS, i will remove the redudunt links thoughZyMOS (talk)

Some links, such as ProComm and TERMiTE (terminal emulator) are redirects to company descriptions. On those pages, there's not enough notable content to use for the purposes of this topic. Tedickey (talk) 20:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't be blamed for links to bad articles, they should be fixed ZyMOS (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minicom

why is minicom not listed? first sentence says its a terminal emulator. Seeing that HyperTerm, the windows equivalent to minicom is mentioned, too, i like to see it added, though its more of a serial console. 94.134.193.231 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The entire topic is redundant, since the existing categories do everything that this topic does, and are more inclusive. TEDickey (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Multiplexers versus terminal emulators

One difference between the multiplexers (such as screen and tmux) and terminal emulators is that the latter provide the mapping from the keyboard to escape sequences such as those sent by cursor- and function-keys. The multiplexers may simply pass on the characters that they're sent by the actual terminal, or they may (less often done) translate the character sequence into their model of terminal emulation. (Likewise, some features such as autowrapping are assumed by the multiplexers and may not be provided if the underlying terminal does not support the feature) TEDickey (talk) 12:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

not a curses application

The two multiplexers are actually termcap applications, don't use curses (programming library) for any of its higher-level features. TEDickey (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it up, changed it to "Command-line interface" as they run within other terminals. Jdc1197 - (talk · userpage · contributions) 00:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Screen is not just a multiplexer. Screen always emulates a vt100 on anything in the same way that wy60 emulates a wy60. For example viewing groff -ms output via less -R in screen on an ibm3151. Try it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.189.65.106 (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Screen doesn't exactly emulate a vt100 (there are differences), and it's certainly not "always". That's well-documented, and is not relevant in this section. TEDickey (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Terminals

There is two not listed Console Emulators (multiplexors?). ConEmu: Hanselman's post, progect page. And Console2: Hanselman's post, project page. May be, they will be added? Maximus7792 (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My first try to write wiki page for ConEmu. Any comments, suggestions, what must be changed? Maximus7792 (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Maximus7792/ConEmu is basically just a list, mostly unsourced. The one source offered with a footnote points to Wikipedia (not a WP:RS). The external links list 2 possible reviews; the last link can be discarded. Without some independent review commenting on the features listed, most of those can be discarded since they're likely only commented on by its developer. TEDickey (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have read WP:RS and update User:Maximus7792/ConEmu. But I'm not sure in some points. How thorough the source must be? Can it be the link to blogpost with confirmed features? Or posts with explanations is required? And, is there restrictions on post language (e.g. russian/chinise/poland)? Please, take a look at new page and let me know, what must be changed or removed.Maximus7792 (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

more than one reason, starting with the overview:

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.

Wikipedia isn't a reliable source because its content can change without notice; the origin of comments in Wikipedia cannot be traced (except through reliable sources) to actual authorities on a given topic, etc. In every instance, an reliable source is preferred to commentary in Wikipedia TEDickey (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, link to wikipedia as source was removed.Maximus7792 (talk) 06:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"TakeCommand/LE" is not a terminal emulator. It is only command processor, that may be started in any terminal. But "Take Command" is. I suggest to replace whole line "TakeCommand/LE [6] - works well (incl. latest cygwin)" with "Take Command" Maximus7792 (talk) 07:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The linked topic does not provide any details that support your comment TEDickey (talk) 10:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, another link: http://jpsoft.com/comparison-command-prompt-commands.html Maximus7792 (talk) 11:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without some specific comment, there's no indication on that page that it's anything other than a command-line client (no terminal emulation) TEDickey (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the difference between Take Command and LE-edition. Maximus7792 (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...which says "TCC is a command processor compatible with CMD" (that is, in some sense compatible with this), this is not a terminal emulator, but rather a shell TEDickey (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...which says "Comparing TCC and TCC/LE". "TCC comes in two versions: the full TCC as distributed with Take Command, and TCC/LE, which is distributed with Take Command LE and is also available separately in a free but unsupported version. We will refer to TCC in this section to mean both TCC and TCC/LE, except where a feature is flagged Not in LE.". Also, in "Overview": "Take Command is designed for Windows XP, Windows 2003, Windows Vista, Windows 2008, Windows 7, and Windows 8, and is available in 32-bit and 64-bit versions. Take Command combines the best features of the GUI and character-mode interfaces. You can have multiple console applications open in tabbed windows, with a Windows Explorer-like interface available for those times when you need a visual look at your folders.". Did you READ the links? "Take Command" contains tcc and tcmd. The last is the emulator also. Tcc/LE is only command processor, it does not contains tcmd (emulator). Maximus7792 (talk) 06:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly - we're both talking about tcmd. tcmd is not a terminal emulator, according to your links it lacks all of the features that are described in terminal emulator. Perhaps you can point to a link which provides further information which differs from the links given so far. TEDickey (talk) 09:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TCC (Take Command Console) is a command line interpreter, which replaced 4NT, which was originally 4DOS, which was a superset of COMMAND.COM. None of these items belong on this list. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the previously listed problems, "Win32 console" I also not a terminal emulator at all. A terminal emulator has a very specific job to perform; emulating a terminal for access to a remote system. Win32 console is a local only command line interface; a completely different job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.80.138 (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block mode terminals

I think something similar to this and Comparison of terminal emulators is needed for Block-oriented terminals. primarily IBM 3270 of course, but also IBM 5250 and various non-IBM block-mode terminals. Should it be added to these lists, or should there be a new list?Peter Flass (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added some 3270 and 5250 emulators here rather than create a new article.Peter Flass (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sexy new one

Rasterman released Terminology some weeks ago, very neat and promising. Feel free to add it. best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.18.64.230 (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://realterm.sourceforge.net/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.80.255.144 (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Start with making a topic on the given product to establish notability, using knowledgeable reliable sources. TEDickey (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability (2)

I removed the notability hatnote {{notability}}. The guideline says "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." There are numerous articles of the type "Comparison of Terminal Emulators" that do just that. See [1] or [2]. Peter Flass (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, the list as given in this topic is an original composition by the Wikipedia editors and does not rely on other sources (whether by knowledgeable reviewers or not) TEDickey (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I added an "Original Research" hatnote. Peter Flass (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attachmate?

Oddly enough, no one's written a topic for it, to establish notability (probably doable). The other random edits as a rule are not. TEDickey (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Android!?

What's the purpose of listing terminal emulators for a partial list of operating systems? And why isn't it called "Partial list of terminal emulators"? Where's the list for Android? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.72.145.165 (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List articles on Wikipedia are very often partial lists, because, for example, some potential items in the list are sufficient obscure that they're not notable and maybe not even known to many editors.

And there's now an entry for a local terminal emulator for Android. Guy Harris (talk) 02:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Historic Terminal emulators

There doesn't seem to be much information on historic terminal emulators. In the 1980's, when we only had physical terminals connected by RS-232 connections, not everyone could afford a DEC VT102. We had to use ADM3 terminals or other ones that lacked many of the advanced features of the VT100 family. So we used programs like the 1986 program vtem, (available on FTP archive of comp.unix.sources)) Another useful program was tn3270 - which emulated the IBM 3270 terminal. These were years before xWindows was announced.

And then this brings to mind the issues we had dealing with non-vt100 terminals, using the TERMCAP database. BruceBarnett (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "list-of" topics aren't the place to introduce that information. Rather, a well-sourced topic page would be the place to start. TEDickey (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 5 terminal emulators not listed

There are at least 5 terminal emulators not listed in the article.

kitty :A cross-platform, fast, feature full, GPU based terminal emulator - https://github.com/kovidgoyal/kitty notty: A new kind of terminal - https://github.com/withoutboats/notty alacritty: A cross-platform, GPU-accelerated terminal emulator - https://github.com/jwilm/alacritty tilix: A tiling terminal emulator for Linux using GTK+ 3 - https://github.com/gnunn1/tilix cool-retro-term: A good looking terminal emulator which mimics the old cathode display... - https://github.com/Swordfish90/cool-retro-term

Descriptions are taken directly from their repositories.

182.253.36.193 (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are literally hundreds of terminal emulators. Most are non-notable. The way to proceed would be to create a topic for each one, establishing notability TEDickey (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add Kitty_(terminal_emulator) Vitaly Zdanevich (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with mentioning the historical terminal emulator in the old Norton Commanders ? Norton Commander was surely notable as a file manager, as was their suite of utilities back in the day. (Yes, nowadays it's only promotion and crappy antiviruses, but I was not talking about those.) Anyway, it's history, so if you wish to not include it, it probably won't affect anyone (those who knew it don't need to see it here, those who don't know it or forgot it don't need it at all). 66.171.170.254 (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Start by reading the guidelines (saving space on talkpages for improvements to the topics): Template:Uw-badlistentry, WP:RS, WP:NOTABILITY TEDickey (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need this list if on Wikipedia we have categories?

For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Free_terminal_emulators

Also queries to Wikidata.

Vitaly Zdanevich (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple listing for kitty

The section for List_of_terminal_emulators#macOS, like the other operating-system sections appears to be for applications that in some way are specific to that system, while more general applications are in X11 and Wayland. Offhand, kitty isn't specific to macOS, doesn't use any macOS-specific APIs, and is not part of any well-known macOS application. So... adding it there appears to be promotional rather than factual TEDickey (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A GUI application can run on macOS by using the native GUI, either by using macOS-specific toolkit or by using a multiple-window-system toolkit such as Qt, or it can run on macOS by using a toolkit that runs atop X11, via XQuartz.

If they happen to run on macOS without X11 (or Wayland, if there's a Wayland-atop-the-native-macOS-GUI display server), and also run on top of X11 or Wayland, is it better that there be two separate entries, in each section, or that there be an additional section for "runs atop both"? (I don't see any way that terminal emulator would belong solely in an "X11 and Wayland" section, as an app using Qt and thus not requiring Xquartz is qualitatively different from an app built atop an X11-omly tookit and thus require Xquartz.)

I might also sugget removing xterm from the macOS list, as it's already in the "X11 and Wayland" list, and runs on macOS because the XQuartz X server runs on macOS, so it's no different from any other X11/Wayland-based terminal emulator that's sufficiently general about the UN*Xes on which it runs.

(A case could alo be made for putting ZOC into a separate list, as it apparently runs on both macOS and Windows.)

Regarding ZOC (I don't see SecureCRT mentioned): a section for non-X/cross-platform would be suitable. This whole topic (like most list-of and comparison-of) is pure WP:OR, and lacking WP:RS, so the next editor to come along will disagree. TEDickey (talk) 08:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's now one big table, with columns for the stuff that might correspond to categories; that allows a single entry for an emulator that might fit in multiple categories. Guy Harris (talk) 02:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]