Hello Dan Farrell,
Why this is the case, I don't think I'll ever understand. White
terminal backgrounds, aside from the invisible color problem, also are
hella ugly.
Many people find black on white far easier to read than white on black,
for the same fonts and sizes.
--
Neil Bothwick
· Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Or why when run in a console the output stays on the screen when you
exit less, thus allowing you to refer to it when typing the next
command, but in an X terminal it 'collapses' to just the command
prompt on exit.
That's because of certain features the
Neil Bothwick wrote:
Hello Dan Farrell,
Why this is the case, I don't think I'll ever understand. White
terminal backgrounds, aside from the invisible color problem, also are
hella ugly.
Many people find black on white far easier to read than white on black,
for the same fonts and sizes.
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 14:24:02 + (UTC)
Grant Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2007-04-05, Alexander Skwar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Grant Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not default to a _useful_ condition?
But, it does! The colors are very useful!
Only on certain terminals.
Dan Farrell wrote:
...White
terminal backgrounds, aside from the invisible color problem, also are
hella ugly.
When I look between reading printed papers or journals and the computer
screen I like windows with white background (actually a little
off-white) black text. That way I can
On 2007-04-07, Dan Farrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Only on certain terminals. They're quite unreadable on a white
background (which has always been the default for xterm and
it's descendants, right?).
Why this is the case, I don't think I'll ever understand.
White terminal backgrounds,
On Thursday 05 April 2007 19:36, Tony Stohne wrote:
Tony Stohne said the following on 2007-04-05 20:26:
...
| I think there is a third alternative to rgb.txt and ~/.Xdefaults.
| bash DIRCOLORS is an option and it will affect ls.
For clarification - dircolors ar not dependent of bash.
It is
On Wednesday 04 April 2007 22:36, b.n. wrote:
*slap on the forehead* Oh my god, now I understand it all. You are using
a WHITE xterm background.
The Gentoo colours make complete sense on a BLACK background. I do agree
that they are insane on a white or otherwise light background.
I was
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mick said the following on 2007-04-06 18:18:
|
| It seems to print out the contents of /etc/DIR_COLORS.
It does, ie it shows the DIR_COLORS config.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)
Hemmann, Volker Armin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ a lot of good replies ]
I am really disgusted.
Very well said!
Alexander Skwar
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Grant Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not default to a _useful_ condition?
But, it does! The colors are very useful!
Alexander Skwar
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's my current favorite. emerge -f digikam. It downloads a
corrupted file
No, it doesn't.
Emerging (6 of 6) media-gfx/digikam-0.9.1 to /
Adjusting permissions recursively: '/Gentoo/Portage/distfiles/'
Downloading
On 2007-04-05, Alexander Skwar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Grant Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not default to a _useful_ condition?
But, it does! The colors are very useful!
Only on certain terminals. They're quite unreadable on a white
background (which has always been the default for
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 14:24:02 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:
But, it does! The colors are very useful!
Only on certain terminals. They're quite unreadable on a white
background (which has always been the default for xterm and
it's descendants, right?).
Those particular colours are
On 2007-04-05, Neil Bothwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 14:24:02 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:
But, it does! The colors are very useful!
Only on certain terminals. They're quite unreadable on a white
background (which has always been the default for xterm and
it's
On 2007-04-05, Grant Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2007-04-05, Alexander Skwar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Grant Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not default to a _useful_ condition?
But, it does! The colors are very useful!
Only on certain terminals. They're quite unreadable on a
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 02:45:15PM +, Grant Edwards wrote:
My point was why default to something that isn't useful for the
standard terminal emulators like xterm, aterm, rxvt, etc. Are
there common terminal emulators that default to a black
background?
aterm on default settings has a
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 14:45:15 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:
Those particular colours are less useful, because they are designed
for a black background,
But the default background on terminals under X has always been
white (at least as long as I remember). Are there really a lot
of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Grant Edwards said the following on 2007-04-05 16:45:
| ...
| My point was why default to something that isn't useful for the
| standard terminal emulators like xterm, aterm, rxvt, etc. Are
| there common terminal emulators that default to a black
|
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 05 April 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote about 'Re:
[gentoo-user] Why are gentoo people so in love with colorized
output?!?':
31334
I think you meant 31337.
I thought he was estimating how many posters took his bait.
--
»Q«
On 2007-04-05, Neil Bothwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 14:45:15 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:
Those particular colours are less useful, because they are designed
for a black background,
But the default background on terminals under X has always been
white (at
On 2007-04-05, Tony Stohne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Grant Edwards said the following on 2007-04-05 16:45:
| ...
| My point was why default to something that isn't useful for the
| standard terminal emulators like xterm, aterm, rxvt, etc. Are
| there common terminal emulators that default to a
Hello Grant Edwards,
Until recently, it was all Gentoo users, since the installation was
done from a virtual console.
Nah. I almost always do 90% of the install from an aterm (with
a white bacground).
Only if you're installing via SSH, otherwise 90% of the install was done
before you
On Thursday 05 April 2007, Grant Edwards wrote:
I used rxvt for many years until cut/paste stopped working for
me a couple years back.
Me too!!
I was in love with rxvt... So I switched to (urxvt)
x11-terms/rxvt-unicode, it is basically the same but fully functional.
Ciao
Francesco
--
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Grant Edwards said the following on 2007-04-05 19:51:
| Grant Edwards said the following on 2007-04-05 16:45:
| | ...
| That will change the colors that are used by 'ls' without
| breaking other programs that use color?
|
The colors of any other
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tony Stohne said the following on 2007-04-05 20:26:
...
| I think there is a third alternative to rgb.txt and ~/.Xdefaults.
| bash DIRCOLORS is an option and it will affect ls.
|
For clarification - dircolors ar not dependent of bash.
It is supported
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Francesco Talamona said the following on 2007-04-05 20:33:
|
| Me too!!
| I was in love with rxvt... So I switched to (urxvt)
| x11-terms/rxvt-unicode, it is basically the same but fully functional.
|
Yes, urxvt is my choice too :) Amen to that!
On 2007-04-05, Neil Bothwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Grant Edwards,
Until recently, it was all Gentoo users, since the installation was
done from a virtual console.
Nah. I almost always do 90% of the install from an aterm (with
a white bacground).
Only if you're installing
Neil Bothwick ha scritto:
Hello Grant Edwards,
Until recently, it was all Gentoo users, since the installation was
done from a virtual console.
Nah. I almost always do 90% of the install from an aterm (with
a white bacground).
Only if you're installing via SSH, otherwise 90% of the
[This is a followup to the whole thread, not any particular posting]
Something interesting just happened to me that I would like to share.
I realized that I have a program called usetool that I must have
installed some time. What is that i thought, so my first try to find
out was to try 'man
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 19:52:28 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:
Only if you're installing via SSH,
Which is how I do all my installs.
Even the first?
A VC is always available, an xterm is usually available, so it makes
sense to base defaults on a VC.
I would pick a default that
On 2007-04-05, Neil Bothwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 19:52:28 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:
Only if you're installing via SSH,
Which is how I do all my installs.
Even the first?
Yup.
A VC is always available, an xterm is usually available, so it makes
sense
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 21:41:12 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:
Thay's why using colors by default can be a problem.
Except you edit make.conf before you emerge anything and guess where you
turn off the colours :)
--
Neil Bothwick
Top Oxymorons Number 20: Synthetic natural gas
signature.asc
Daniel Iliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Exactly. So, MHO is that it would be better if all the output from
console apps was just plain text with the option for people who want
colors to enable and customize colors, wouldn't it?
It might have been. But now that the stuff is all in IMO very
nice
snip /
I find the coloured output useful, as for me it adds readability. If you
don't like the defaults edit them to no colour or something more sane
for you.
I agree with Alexander I predict a riot if the colour were removed by
default.
Cheers
Wayn0
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
On 2007-04-04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why do --nocolor and --color=n not work (sys-apps/portage-2.1.2.3)?
Why does the damned thing default to thinking I want blaring bizarre
colors scattered all over my screen?
Yea, nothing is quite as readible as yellow or bright green
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 02:26:47PM +, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2007-04-04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why do --nocolor and --color=n not work (sys-apps/portage-2.1.2.3)?
Why does the damned thing default to thinking I want blaring bizarre
colors scattered all over my
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At least ls's color comes from that damned alias. You can at least
use /bin/ls or prefix each command with TERM=vt100 to get rid of
them temporarily, or unalias -a to get rid of them permanently per
login, or edit /etc/profile to get rid of them permanently forever.
On 2007-04-04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 02:26:47PM +, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2007-04-04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why do --nocolor and --color=n not work (sys-apps/portage-2.1.2.3)?
Why does the damned thing default to
On 2007-04-04, Neil Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At least ls's color comes from that damned alias. You can at least
use /bin/ls or prefix each command with TERM=vt100 to get rid of
them temporarily, or unalias -a to get rid of them permanently per
login, or edit
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 05:56:07PM +, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2007-04-04, Neil Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At least ls's color comes from that damned alias. You can at least
use /bin/ls or prefix each command with TERM=vt100 to get rid of
them
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 17:55:20 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:
Except forever only lasts until the next emerge replaces
/etc/profile.
Emerge never replaces files in /etc unless you use dangerous,
non-standard settings.
--
Neil Bothwick
Windows isn't a virus -- viruses do something!
Grant Edwards wrote:
My point is that why should you have to edit something before
you can get legible output from something as basic as ls.
Why not default to a _useful_ condition?
It's VERY legible on all of the systems I administer - but, then, I use
the text-based console, not some
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ha scritto:
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 02:26:47PM +, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2007-04-04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why do --nocolor and --color=n not work (sys-apps/portage-2.1.2.3)?
Why does the damned thing default to thinking I want blaring bizarre
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 07:19:39PM +, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2007-04-04, Neil Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Grant Edwards wrote:
My point is that why should you have to edit something before
you can get legible output from something as basic as ls.
Why not default to a _useful_
45 matches
Mail list logo
