Hacker News

points by ktosobcy 2 days ago | 0 comments

Why should I use Ghostty over iTerm2? I don't care about fancy fonts, iTerm2 speed (for me) is plenty (just tested against 1.4 -- don't see noticeable difference on MBP M1) and I do like to tweak some options/settings (and was just mildly annoyed when hitting `cmd+,` opened my default text editor...

[–] thiht 2 days ago

If you’re fine using iTerm just use iTerm. In my case I used iTerm for years and kinda liked it, but not completely. I’d been looking for an alternative for years but couldn’t find one I like (Alacritty doesn’t support pane splitting, Wezterm has full code config which I hate, Kitty doesn’t look good on Mac, Terminal.app is dog slow…). Ghostty just fits my needs pretty much exactly.

[–] techpression 2 days ago

For me even just the config format is such an upgrade that it was worth switching. Just a simple text file I can backup anywhere and actually read without clicking in a tabbed GUI where I never seem to remember what goes where. iTerm2 still has that weird thing you have to export right?

[–] kccqzy 2 days ago

It’s subjective. The config format is a downgrade for me. The only settings I change is the color theme anyways. The terminal default should work well. It takes four seconds to use the mouse to open the theme config and pick a theme. It takes at least five minute to find the config file location, the syntax for the config file, understand whether it uses fs events to auto reload, and then decide to include or exclude it in your backups. I don’t intensely customize my terminal emulator so it’s not worthwhile. On the other hand my Emacs config is more than 500 lines long and that’s worthwhile.

[–] mixmastamyk 2 days ago

I think you hit upon what bugs me about file config. It's not the file, it is having to find it, find the docs, find the syntax, find the keys, find the values, etc.

If it was always in a standard format, it wouldn't be a problem. Something like dconf, without the poor design.

[–] ktosobcy 1 day ago

OK, that may be true (and yes, iTerm still uses weird plist xD) but... On the day to day basis I don't care about config file. I mostly use one OS, I don't do reinstalls (had MBP from 2013, then after switching to MBP M1 moved the files and configs _once_) so having nice and readable config doesn't matter at all.

Having to search for some obscure configuration names and options is simply getting in the way.

For that reason I stayed away from Zed for ages - it is a fine editor but tweaking it options without even rudementary settings GUI was just super-meh.

I do hope that Ghostty will go the same route and they will add something that would help manage the simple config options (backed by the config file) without having to deal with purely-textual form)

[–] therealmarv 2 days ago

I'm also very reluctant to switch and will not switch anytime soon. I have small compact tabs which I color code dynamically with iTerm2 and also custom profiles with custom keyboard keys overrides by program and directory. So the "harness" around the terminal is more feature rich with iTerm2.

These kind of features are not available in Ghostty in this form.

And about backups in iTerm2: Just do an export and maybe also a backup of your profiles. So that works.

I also do not care about a "super fast" terminal... my iTerm2 is fast enough for 99% of use cases for me.

[–] justauserid 2 days ago

> Just do an export

I have a feeling you already know this. You can direct its unnecessarily monstrous .plist file to a folder of your choice and that way it will remain synced and/or backed up all the time if that folder is. [General > Settings > External settings]

[–] justauserid 2 days ago

I am an iTerm2 user but I find its .plist config file a lot anachronistic and, if I may say so, quite absurd. I have tried too many settings and I still struggle with keyboard inputs getting trapped wrongly, lost, et cetera, the warnings that appear out of nowhere and I notice was wrong. But iTerm2 is the only terminal app that looks the best on mac (even better than the Terimnal.app itself) and somehow sits naturally with everything else around. I am sure for a lot of terminal users it might not even the last concern but for me it is. I tried Ghostty but I just couldn't like it. Kitty won't even be a consideration for many reasons (one is better off not discussed here). cmux is indeed quite good but it has become a HYDRA and will keeps on growing in every direction. iTerm2 would do great to keep the outer clothes and possibly adopts the base of something else. It isn't particularly snappy either. I moved back from Ghostty to iTerm2 even though I felt usage wise Ghostty was suprior. Ghostty just felt out of place.

[–] ritzaco 1 day ago

I had ~10 years of iTerm2 muscle memory which stopped me switching for ages. I also liked the half-screen dropdown terminals from iTerm that Ghostty doesn't have .

But I switched due some iTerm2 bugs and performance reasons (I'm usually running up to ~100 terminal panes, split across 4-5 windows and up to 9 tabs per window) and it was much easier than I expected. I got used to my hotkeys bringing up full-screen quick terminals instead of half screen ones and that's actually usually what I want anyway, and iterm just feels more hackable in general; my agents are able to help get input to and from the various panes quite easily, and I haven't had a single bug or crash so far.

[–] ktosobcy 1 day ago

> performance reasons (I'm usually running up to ~100 terminal panes, split across 4-5 windows and up to 9 tabs per window)

Yeah... I could maybe see that but for me at best I have a dozens of terminal panes and I haven't seen any slowdown in my usecase :)

[–] bbkane 2 days ago

One reason is portability if you use (or plan to use) desktop Linux

[–] ktosobcy 1 day ago

I usually use macOS + Fedora KDE and Konsole is more than enough for me :)

[–] hamburglar 2 days ago

I don't think anyone is trying to convince you you should use Ghostty over iTerm2. It's a technically excellent terminal built with an incredibly rigorous and well thought out guiding philosophy and a remarkable amount of passion. Nobody cares if you want to run it or not.

[–] ktosobcy 1 day ago

> I don't think anyone is trying to convince you you should use Ghostty over iTerm2.

Maybe I framed it wrongly. Though general vibe in every Ghostty posting is "why are you still not using it?!" which is weird…

> It's a technically excellent terminal built with an incredibly rigorous and well thought out guiding philosophy and a remarkable amount of passion.

I get that but... while it may be excellent on technical level at the end of the day it's a tool and if it's lacking (and for me it is) then it doesn't matter how excellent it is?

[–] hamburglar 1 day ago

I appreciate you letting us know.

[–] elxr 1 day ago

The docs for ghostty's config file is a lot easier to reason about for one. The built in themes are IMO a lot better in ghostty.

Nowadays, it's also a more fun community. I end up learning things about terminal rendering I never would've otherwise just by reading ghostty-related blogs.

[–] noident 2 days ago

I find iTerm2's constant prompts to update to be annoying. It has also crashed on me a few times. Lastly, I also prefer ghostty's text-based configuration.

[–] ktosobcy 1 day ago

> I find iTerm2's constant prompts to update to be annoying.

Uhm... what prompts? ;) I do have auto-update and it does it in the background -- I haven't seen any prompt in ages.

Alternatively you can use brew/Latest.app to handle updates when it's convenient for you?

[–] toxik 1 day ago

There is no reason. I switched from iTerm 2 and while Ghostty is a lot faster and lighter, it has occasional rendering issues and does not detect URLs as well. It also doesn't have tmux control mode which I really liked.

I quit using iTerm 2 because of the AI features. Ew.