The issue? It's misleading. It's deceptive. It's dishonest. And outright wrong.

This program is not "minimal": It tracks processes. Most other commonplace terminals don't do that. The program is not "user-friendly": there's at least one thing that gets in the way of some users. Besides, computers don't "befriend" users, so let's cut such empty marketing phrasing.

The new description is not specifically negative. It just states facts. Do you deny that the palette colors are unchangable? Do you deny that g-c has desktop notifications? Other users would be stoked to have desktop notifications and a cursor that stops blinking eventually (xterm doesn't do either of those two). There isn't even a recommendation or recommendation against.

Whether you want to use the program is a determination you alone make for yourself. A good description helps make that determination before installing the package, and helps set the expectations. Your [0] rq does not address that at all.

Robert Frohl (rfrohl) - 8 months ago

The description I proposed does not talk about minimal or user-friendly any more. I assumed that some of the language used was the issue. I was hoping that it could be seen as a middle ground.

I think the issues that you describe in the second paragraph is why it is described as 'minimal'. There is a minimal feature set and you get the terminal as it is, without the option to change a lot. Either you like what you get or you do not, and then you can still remove it.