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 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
[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 f
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
> >>
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!
sig
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 som
[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
colo
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
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 ar
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
-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
|
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
befor
-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 pr
-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!
//Ci
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 instal
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 defaul
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
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.
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 w
-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)
iD8DBQFGFpM3JDzv6DN+QUkRAuj4AKCHJ15LzZqq
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
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
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
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.
26 matches
Mail list logo
