I can attest to what jesSch1023 says:

1. LXterminal is a good choice. It has a decent feature set and it's a good choice for ordinary use. Those who have specific requirements are likely to be able to"grab" whatever they want, myself included. But for casual use, and even for most of the things I am likely to need, LXterminal will do the job.

2. I am also certain that antiX-17 will be very good, even"awesome" right out of the box. With all of the alternatives we have available right within the antiX community - the regular antiX distribution, the ability to start with antiX Core and build what you want, or the light to medium, Xfce-based MX variation that the"MEPIS Lovers" community has created with the antiX team, we have multiple options, all of which have a distinctive appeal for various audiences. I can tell you that for my own needs, when I simply want a simple setup, I go with MX - currently MX-16.1 with updates. When I want something lighter, I use antiX with one of the resource conserving window managers, and when I want to build something that has any Debian-based software, customized to my exact needs, I build my own antiX Core, which, interestingly, is very similar to what has since been built as MX! Lots of excellent choices, all of them useful.

Reading what our development team has been going through to get the recent kernels working properly with the network stack, I'm confident that we have a great bunch of people working together!

Yeah. Because as usual. I am gonna do what I want anyways.

I'll roll with what ever comes as default. Then tweak to my own tastes. Just like I do on stock motorcycles. None of my bikes are stock.

Even if we go with Guake or Yakuake. Grinning as I imagine the full iso going into the gigabyte range. Instead of cd range. I guess base and core are gonna be my only oldy computer options if PLOP does not carry the load. Good thing my atom netbooks have usb boot bios capabilty , even with a external DVDROM drive.

Edit: Just wondering. What is wrong with using xfce4 terminal instead of lxterminal?
Besides size of including it with xfce4 libs? Because size of full iso looks to be given on not fitting on cd anymore?
__{{emoticon}}__

rokytnji wrote:Yeah. Because as usual. I am gonna do what I want anyways.

I'll roll with what ever comes as default. Then tweak to my own tastes. Just like I do on stock motorcycles. None of my bikes are stock.

Even if we go with Guake or Yakuake. Grinning as I imagine the full iso going into the gigabyte range. Instead of cd range. I guess base and core are gonna be my only oldy computer options if PLOP does not carry the load. Good thing my atom netbooks have usb boot bios capabilty , even with a external DVDROM drive.

Edit: Just wondering. What is wrong with using xfce4 terminal instead of lxterminal?
Besides size of including it with xfce4 libs? Because size of full iso looks to be given on not fitting on cd anymore?
__{{emoticon}}__

Actually Roky, on the vast majority of my systems, if I am using a desktop environment, I use Xfce, and I use the xfce4 terminal.
Otherwise, I tend to use IceWM, though a few times I've grafted the xf display in, but EXIT can be a challenge, unless I manually kill whatever I start in a *strange* way. My own custom antiX Core in fact used Xfce, as I've mentioned before. For a long time, that was my favorite distribution to use on a regular basis; life got BUSY though and I have not done anything with it recently.

I've custom built unusual merging of apps and packages from all kinds of environments in the past, and as long as I built them myself, I could get them to work quite well. No time for that any more, unfortunately.

I know how you roll Brian, watching you over the years. My question was not actually pointed at you. But more pointed AND shot at other members of this forum reading this thread.

I think that lilyterm and lxterminal are both good replacements for ROXTerm. Plus, urxvt is included out of the box, which I would think would satisfy most advanced users.

That being said, I would give a slight ege to LXTerminal, mainly to promote consistency. Even if this might be a bit superficial, as a user it makes me feel a little more confident about the distribution when I can see that it isn't completely cobbled together from random parts. Plus, it becomes easier to remember the software installed on your computer-- when everything comes from the same project, names begin to make more sense because the developers likely used the same patterns in many places. There is a peace of mind brought by consistency, and it aids in discoverability by reducing the number of naming patterns that a user has to remember to fully understand the software she has installed.

In Antix 16 we're already using other components of the LXDE desktop (leafpad, lxappearance) so I think it would lend a nice consistency to go with LXTerminal, for that reason.

But, I think going either way would be fine, because URXVT will be there no matter what, right? __{{emoticon}}__

Only if you are used to lxde. If the user isn't then there is no loss of 'consistency' or sense of it being 'cobbled together'

Any terminal will do me, as long as I can scroll it, even xterm. __{{emoticon}}__

rokytnji wrote:I know how you roll Brian, watching you over the years. My question was not actually pointed at you. But more pointed AND shot at other members of this forum reading this thread.

Yeah, I know you do! We've each been among the many who have experimented a lot with the distro, regardless of what pieces are included or excluded from the various images.

I like the various combinations that we offer here. There's plenty to tweak around with, for those of us who are so inclined, but there are also some very usable combinations provided both in antiX and in the MX variations that can be used as is, or customized to the max.

I've done a lot of both in the past, but less so recently. About the only thing I've done recently is update the parent Debian repo and rebuild my personal configurations according to the tools available from Debian and experiment a bit to make sure that they still work with antiX and MX. For the most part, they usually do. On the rare occasion that is not the case, I just rebuild the distro, starting with one of our current releases. Both antiX and MX have served me well in this regard always.