Should gnome terminal replace with console by default

as we know now gnome have rewritten console a new terminal emulator and the old terminal app deprecated so we should switch bu default and include new console instead of old terminal in fedora 38.

That is interesting one.

console fits in better aesthetically because it is gtk4-based.

However, it has some serious functionality limitations and shortcomings compared to gnome-terminal. I wonder if 38 is too soon for that transition. :thinking:

2 Likes

As we know gnome have a terminal replacement for there terminal called console which is a gtk4 implementation of new libadwaita style terminal emulator.
Console is now stable and have all the features that terminal have.

Don’t think this is a Silverblue question. Silverblue will presumably switch if/when workstation does.

@frankjunior, since you raised this same issue a few weeks ago, I combined the topics so the conversation could stay in one place.

1 Like

Console is now stable and have all the features that terminal have.

Incorrect. Console has severe accessibility issues. (As in: It didn’t support accessibility features at all until this past week, and it still doesn’t support them properly.) Therefore it doesn’t have all the features that it needs.

This is the main reason why Fedora 37 is still using GNOME Terminal instead of Console.

The root cause: Orca (screen reader) isn’t working due to a regression of the GTK4 version of VTE.

It’s partially fixed, but more work is needed (and thankfully people are working on it).

Console also does not respect the large font setting (this is still open, at the time of this post):

Fedora 38 will very likely have whatever fixes land soon, and it might switch at that time, if Orca fully works with Console.

Meanwhile, nothing’s stopping most people from installing GNOME Console and using it (if they can) and want to make the switch already. On Silverblue, you’d need to overlay it, however.

4 Likes

thanks i forgot about that. i just install on someone and see that and thought to ask so it was repeated

1 Like

Another missing feature is the ability to set the default terminal size, preferences, etc. in console. With terminal you have a variety of line&column sizes that can be set for opening a new terminal window among several other items. Console has almost no configuration options on the “hamburger” menu, and definitely no preferences.

1 Like

For my opinion to rudimentary.

whereis console
console: /usr/share/man/mann/console.n.gz

not even show a config location. Just the man page.

I don’t use it since it is so functionality limited but I think the binary has a different name. kgx or something similar.

2 Likes

I agree with that. If you install a vanilla gnome desktop you just get this (for example a very simple arch install).
While using it with arch, I saw one advantage, while change to su in a terminal the header changes to red, so you know it is a terminal with elevated rights.

That’s why i try to find the config files. Also with whereis kgx I do not have any luck ?!

I’ve just installed gnome-console on Silverblue but I can’t find any settings. It’s unusable for now… :neutral_face:

1 Like

I think the change of color in the tabs (top bar) is interesting. Red for root access, purple/violet for ssh, and normal for local. Have not noted any others yet.

Only settings are text zoom level and background mode (light, dark, day/night). There are a couple others labeled ‘keyboard shortcuts’ & ‘new window’ but nothing else at all.

most users just use terminal for some commend to run like maybe update so install something else i don’t think a normal user will use terminal over gui now for a general user console is good looking shows red when user is in root mode. shows do what you want with a caution.

That is because it has very, very few settings. It is in no way a drop-in replacement for gnome-terminal at this point.

This seems like a pretty broad generalization. What makes a user “normal” in this case?

I think it is likely that every person has a different definition of that based on their own experiences.

1 Like

normal means non-advance or non techique kind of users

  1. It turns out I’m not normal. :upside_down_face:

  2. These terminals are also GUIs… I rarely access the terminal with Alt + Ctrl + F3. :wink:

1 Like

By your definition I must be a very “abnormal” user. :roll_eyes: I use a computer daily. Do admin, and have a terminal window open and in use the full time I am logged in.

A gui only allows the user to do what the developer decided was important. A terminal window is 100% flexible and in many cases faster than navigating a gui.

For example, if I want to see the file properties in nautilus I have to navigate to the folder, right click the file name, then select properties. Minimum of 4 mouse clicks and probably more since I have to click at least once for each directory level. :thinking:
From the terminal I do ls -l /path/to/file or any of the other options for ls to see the file information. :nerd_face:

This is not to say that the gui is not very usable for most things. However, the command line still has a major impact for many as well

2 Likes

no no that was not what i have said you are the advance type of user but normal means most they don’t know much about technology.

i think this normal word making controversy so i am withdrawing that word and replacing with general .

No, these are, almost by definition, macOS and Windows users. In my life, I met only one macOS user (that system isn’t too popular here in Europe but that guy had spent many years living abroad in the USA)–he didn’t know about the existence of Linux and believed Egyptian Pyramids were built by aliens. I failed to convince him Linux is any good. :joy:

Terminal emulator is the only application opened the whole time while I’m on the computer. It’s the first application I open in order to connect my device to the Internet and the last application I use typing poweroff. I do a lot of stuff in the terminal, starting from package management, through widely speaking navigating the system, ending on programming.

It’s a question of definitions but I’m anything but not an advanced Linux user. It’s just too evident for me I don’t have 5% of the knowledge Fedora devs and advanced users have. I tried to learn some assembly and other stuff but I still have no crazy idea how the computer works–it’s a pure magic.

I’m neither a system admin nor a “computer scientist” or anything like that. I never studied informatics at the university. I use the computer for browsing the Internet, watching movies, writing scientific papers, chatting with girls, doing some basic programming, etc. Am I not a “general” user…? :wink:

1 Like