On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 02:31:26PM +0200, Paul Slootman wrote: > > Why do you need to run dircolors anyway? I don't and I still get > > coloured output.. > Then you must have some other arrangement to get the colors; > it's not enabled by default. Try a fresh install (I have). > Maybe a direct setting of LS_COLORS in your .bash_profile or > whatever? Setting LS_COLORS only affects the colors that certain files get, based on their suffix or file type (directory, block device, etc). Unsetting LS_COLORS gives you the default coloring.
Coloring or not only depends on the options you give to ls. There are however aliases suggested by .bashrc (initally commented out) and environment variable settings that do: LS_OPTIONS=--color=auto alias ls='ls $LS_OPTIONS' --color=auto tells ls to use color iff output is a tty. ls never looks at the terminal type. Basically: yes, ls could be improved. It uses hardcoded escape sequences. Nils -- Quotes from the net, featuring John Lapeyre[L] and Christopher F. Miller [M]: M> I'm not sure what the right words are to describe Upside. Last month they M> mentioned the sendmail **web server** as an example of the failure of the M> open source process.... L> Well, sendmail does a lousy job of serving webpages.
pgpgOOFVvWm7m.pgp
Description: PGP signature
