On 12/31/2011 10:58 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
well, that is exactly what it is meant for :-)
Some things have to be seen to be believed ...
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/user
Am 31.12.2011 19:27, schrieb Paul Allen Newell:
> The question is whether it is uglier than the missing file (smile).
> I am even more inclined to agree with Craig that it is effective at
> getting me to want to fix the underlying problem so the blinking stops.
well, that is exactly what it is m
On 12/31/2011 3:01 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
ln -s /dfdfdfdf ./hmpf
ls -l -h --color=tty -X --group-directories-first --time-style=long-iso
Reindl:
Thanks. It didn't show up at first and suspected that it might be the
cygwin terminal. So, I ran startxwin to get an xwin and then I can see
it
Am 31.12.2011 07:47, schrieb Paul Allen Newell:
> But, I need an example from the community of a "ls" showing a blinking item
> to
> understand why it might make sense.
ln -s /dfdfdfdf ./hmpf
ls -l -h --color=tty -X --group-directories-first --time-style=long-iso
signature.asc
Description:
On 12/23/2011 6:56 AM, Aaron Konstam wrote:
It is not the blinking that bothers me. Its the impossibility of reading
the file names in some colors. Black letters on a red background is a
good example.
Someone asked me to post if I found anything interesting on this thread.
I already posted th
On Monday 26 December 2011 10:31:02 les wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-12-25 at 17:12 +, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> > Wow, look, another OT thread to contribute to! :-D
[snip]
> > [me loading extension_Relativity... skipping: already hard-coded]
> >
> > In any discussion related to theory of relativity i
On Sun, 2011-12-25 at 17:12 +, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> Wow, look, another OT thread to contribute to! :-D
>
> On Sunday 25 December 2011 23:35:15 Tim wrote:
> > Tim:
> > >> We're mostly sensitive to green, then red, then blue.
> >
> > Joe Zeff:
> > > Not quite, AIUI. The wavelength the huma
On 12/25/2011 05:05 AM, Tim wrote:
It's not actually yellow. If you were going to argue the line of us
being sensitive to the colour of the sun, actually it's far more logical
that we're least sensitive to the strongest colours about.
As long as we're on that subject for a moment, I'd like to
Wow, look, another OT thread to contribute to! :-D
On Sunday 25 December 2011 23:35:15 Tim wrote:
> Tim:
> >> We're mostly sensitive to green, then red, then blue.
>
> Joe Zeff:
> > Not quite, AIUI. The wavelength the human eye is most sensitive to is
> > in the "greenish yellow" range, much mo
Tim:
>> We're mostly sensitive to green, then red, then blue.
Joe Zeff:
> Not quite, AIUI. The wavelength the human eye is most sensitive to is
> in the "greenish yellow" range, much more yellow than green.
Well, as far as coloured sight goes, the primary colours are red, green,
and blue. Tha
On 12/24/2011 06:45 AM, Tim wrote:
We're mostly sensitive to green, then red,
then blue.
Not quite, AIUI. The wavelength the human eye is most sensitive to is
in the "greenish yellow" range, much more yellow than green.
Considering that the Sun is a yellow dwarf, it's much more likely for us
Am 24.12.2011 16:30, schrieb Aaron Konstam:
> On Fri, 2011-12-23 at 22:59 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>> Am 23.12.2011 22:52, schrieb Aaron Konstam:
> I guess I am thick because I can't understand the explanation in the web
> page above. An example or two might have helped.
To all:
I was able to fire up one of my backup machine (32 bit F14) and, via a
ssh from cygwin, could see that a directory I had created under cygwin
had protections of "drwxrwxrwx". It displayed as "black" on a mid-level
green (aka totally unreadable). I ran "chmod go-w " and then did
anothe
On Fri, 2011-12-23 at 22:59 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 23.12.2011 22:52, schrieb Aaron Konstam:
> >>> I guess I am thick because I can't understand the explanation in the web
> >>> page above. An example or two might have helped.
> >>
> >> you need to understand what SETUID and CAPABILITI
On Sat, 2011-12-24 at 11:31 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> really?
>
> i had several operations on my eyes from 2006 until now, currently
> only the left eye is able to recognize anything on a screen with
> only 80% or a healthy person and i have no problems with it
>
> so you better should cons
On Sat, 2011-12-24 at 02:49 -0700, Craig White wrote:
> considering that blue is the default colorization for directories in
> ls, then using a black background for your terminal means that you are
> going to either have difficulty (and do your best to defeat
> colorization) or customize it.
I've
Am 24.12.2011 10:49, schrieb Craig White:
> considering that blue is the default colorization for directories in ls,
> then using a black background for your terminal means that you are going
> to either have difficulty (and do your best to defeat colorization) or
> customize it.
really?
i had
On Sat, 2011-12-24 at 19:55 +1030, Tim wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-12-23 at 09:09 -0700, Craig White wrote:
> > dark terminal backgrounds are good for novelty but not good for
> > actually using on a semi-continual basis.
>
> Can't say that I agree with that, because I believe the opposite. On
> CRT an
On Fri, 2011-12-23 at 09:09 -0700, Craig White wrote:
> dark terminal backgrounds are good for novelty but not good for
> actually using on a semi-continual basis.
Can't say that I agree with that, because I believe the opposite. On
CRT and LCDs, I find brightish text on black backgrounds easier
Am 23.12.2011 22:52, schrieb Aaron Konstam:
>>> I guess I am thick because I can't understand the explanation in the web
>>> page above. An example or two might have helped.
>>
>> you need to understand what SETUID and CAPABILITIES are
>> what examples are you expecting? these are technics
>>
>>
On Fri, 2011-12-23 at 15:57 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 23.12.2011 15:47, schrieb Aaron Konstam:
> > On Thu, 2011-12-22 at 23:55 -0500, Richard Heck wrote:
> >> On 12/22/2011 03:33 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> >>> Richard Heck wrote:
> When I do:
> ls /bin/ping
> I
On 12/23/2011 12:18 PM, Paul Allen Newell wrote:
If I read the prior posts correctly, Richard Heck cites a black text on
red background. That's alot different than bright green on black ... or
even amber (which I have to admit does remind me of old days as well).
That's why I was careful to sp
On 12/23/2011 11:58 AM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 12/23/2011 08:09 AM, Craig White wrote:
dark terminal backgrounds are good for novelty but not good for actually
using on a semi-continual basis.
Speak for yourself, John Alden. I happen to like bright green on
black. Not only do I find it quite re
On 12/23/2011 08:09 AM, Craig White wrote:
dark terminal backgrounds are good for novelty but not good for actually
using on a semi-continual basis.
Speak for yourself, John Alden. I happen to like bright green on black.
Not only do I find it quite readable, it reminds me of days gone by.
I
On 12/23/2011 1:11 AM, jdow wrote:
On 2011/12/22 23:08, Paul Allen Newell wrote:
any such changes would be in the .bashrc file ... forgetting
/etc/.bashrc.
/etc/bashrc
The file has no leading period in the /etc directory.
{o.o}
Thanks, I would have discovered my typo when I did a ls -a of /et
On Fri, 2011-12-23 at 08:56 -0600, Aaron Konstam wrote:
> It is not the blinking that bothers me. Its the impossibility of reading
> the file names in some colors. Black letters on a red background is a
> good example.
dark terminal backgrounds are good for novelty but not good for actually
u
Am 23.12.2011 15:47, schrieb Aaron Konstam:
> On Thu, 2011-12-22 at 23:55 -0500, Richard Heck wrote:
>> On 12/22/2011 03:33 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
>>> Richard Heck wrote:
When I do:
ls /bin/ping
I get "ping" displayed with black text on a red background. I don't see
>
On Thu, 2011-12-22 at 18:50 -0700, Craig White wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-12-22 at 17:35 -0800, Paul Allen Newell wrote:
> > On 12/22/2011 5:30 PM, Craig White wrote:
> > >
> > > I find it extremely useful to have my attention drawn to the fact that
> > > this linked file is broken so the flashing seem
On Thu, 2011-12-22 at 14:52 -0800, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 12/22/2011 02:08 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > Look up the manual "man dircolors". It's documented.
>
> Yes, but only if you happen to understand the numeric codes and how they
> interact. For somebody like me, who has no need to know th
On Thu, 2011-12-22 at 23:55 -0500, Richard Heck wrote:
> On 12/22/2011 03:33 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> > Richard Heck wrote:
> >> When I do:
> >> ls /bin/ping
> >> I get "ping" displayed with black text on a red background. I don't see
> >> anything special about its permissions. What'
On Thu, 2011-12-22 at 23:09 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 15:53:56 -0600, AK (Aaron) wrote:
>
> > > Same here. Do : ls /bin/* and you will see he programs hat display
> > > like: mount, umount, ping, su, fusermounnt, and ping6.
> > >
> > > I can't figure out what these pr
On 2011/12/22 23:08, Paul Allen Newell wrote:
any such changes would be in the .bashrc file ... forgetting /etc/.bashrc.
/etc/bashrc
The file has no leading period in the /etc directory.
{o.o}
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
ht
On 12/22/2011 11:26 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
If you find anything you think the rest of us might find interesting
and can describe without blowing your stack let us know. And, if
enough of us don't like it, maybe we can get it changed.
I will post after I dig ... assuming I get my machine back (
On 12/22/2011 11:08 PM, Paul Allen Newell wrote:
That being said, I do think I will take a dive into "what has Fedora
decided is the best usage and overridden the default". I suspect I will
be surprised, but I promise that I will do my screaming in the general
direction of my backyard and not thi
On 12/22/2011 10:55 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
Welcome
BTW, if you want to know all of the aliases defined for your current
session just type "alias". By default the system sets up more than just
aliases for "ls".
Ed:
I am very familiar with the command alias. I just made a blind
assumption
On 12/23/2011 10:32 AM, Paul Allen Newell wrote:
> Many thanks. As I wrote to jdow, it is especially appreciated given
> that my machine is in repair so all I can do is ask questions without
> being able to do any searching for answers (yes, I could probably
> google around, but as I wrote Joe I wa
On 12/22/2011 03:33 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Richard Heck wrote:
When I do:
ls /bin/ping
I get "ping" displayed with black text on a red background. I don't see
anything special about its permissions. What's up?
Fedora switched[1] from using the suid-bit to capabilities. If you
wis
On 12/22/2011 6:24 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
alias ls='ls --color=auto'
/bin/ls
[egreshko@meimei profile.d]$ which ls
alias ls='ls --color=auto'
/bin/ls
[egreshko@meimei profile.d]$ which ll
alias ll='ls -l --color=auto'
/bin/ls
[egreshko@meimei profile.d]$ which l.
alias
On 12/22/2011 6:22 PM, jdow wrote:
To be honest I forget whether it is "alias ls="ls --color"" or
"alias ls="ls --color=auto"". I suspect it's the former, at least for
root. This is one of the first things I doctor with things like:
alias dir="ls -lrt --color=auto"
alias ls="ls --color=auto"
ali
On 12/23/2011 09:22 AM, Paul Allen Newell wrote:
> On 12/22/2011 5:15 PM, jdow wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> My F14 Linux box is getting repaired so I can't test ... what is
>>> this alias
>>> changing about 'ls'? I don't remember seeing any factory-setting
>>> .bashrc that
>>> has ls aliased to ls with some o
On 2011/12/22 17:22, Paul Allen Newell wrote:
On 12/22/2011 5:15 PM, jdow wrote:
My F14 Linux box is getting repaired so I can't test ... what is this alias
changing about 'ls'? I don't remember seeing any factory-setting .bashrc that
has ls aliased to ls with some options?
It's been stand
On 12/22/2011 5:15 PM, jdow wrote:
My F14 Linux box is getting repaired so I can't test ... what is this
alias
changing about 'ls'? I don't remember seeing any factory-setting
.bashrc that
has ls aliased to ls with some options?
It's been standard since RedHat 5.something, at least.
It
On 12/23/2011 09:50 AM, Craig White wrote:
> can't say for certain (and I'm not going to research) but I've been
> using Linux for many years and never see blinking names from an ls
> command except for broken symbolic links. Blinking/flashing makes sense
> in terms of drawing your attention to thi
On 12/22/2011 5:50 PM, Craig White wrote:
can't say for certain (and I'm not going to research) but I've been
using Linux for many years and never see blinking names from an ls
command except for broken symbolic links. Blinking/flashing makes sense
in terms of drawing your attention to thin
On Thu, 2011-12-22 at 17:35 -0800, Paul Allen Newell wrote:
> On 12/22/2011 5:30 PM, Craig White wrote:
> >
> > I find it extremely useful to have my attention drawn to the fact that
> > this linked file is broken so the flashing seems entirely useful. The
> > colorization is less interesting to me
On 12/22/2011 5:36 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
I remember, once, chasing this down from /etc/bashrc to some other
file and, IIRC, a third file that contains the definitions. I was
very unhappy to learn that all of the definitions were numeric and
there was no key included to help you figure out what
On 12/22/2011 05:22 PM, Paul Allen Newell wrote:
I remember seeing certain files or directories colorized to some color
over black which, in my opinion, is visually difficult to read and I've
been following the thread with the hopes of seeign a solution. I don't
mind, and actually like, colored t
On 12/22/2011 5:30 PM, Craig White wrote:
I find it extremely useful to have my attention drawn to the fact that
this linked file is broken so the flashing seems entirely useful. The
colorization is less interesting to me and very painful if I try to use
white on black terminals (so I don't).
I
On 12/22/2011 5:26 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
Part of the standard .bashrc includes /etc/bashrc and its standard
definitions. One of them sets ls to be the color version, and I used
to chase it down and remove it, only to have the next update of the
file return it. I finally realized that putting
On Thu, 2011-12-22 at 17:10 -0800, jdow wrote:
> Now THAT one is indeed a borken specification in the ls colorization code.
> Blinking anything makes me want to find the person who perpetrated it and
> wreck unimaginable havoc upon his soon to be cooling body.
>
> {^_^} and about this one, I'm
On 12/22/2011 05:04 PM, Paul Allen Newell wrote:
My F14 Linux box is getting repaired so I can't test ... what is this
alias changing about 'ls'? I don't remember seeing any factory-setting
.bashrc that has ls aliased to ls with some options?
Paul
Part of the standard .bashrc includes /etc/bas
On 12/22/2011 04:59 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
do colors hurt you?
what is so different in understanding a hdnaful of colors?
If I want that info, I can always use ls -l; if I don't use that, it
means that I don't care or don't need it.
what is so different to understand a blinking red link
On 2011/12/22 17:04, Paul Allen Newell wrote:
On 12/22/2011 2:52 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
That's why my .bashrc contains this line:
alias ls=ls
That gets rid of the colors that somebody "helpfully" decided that everybody
wants.
Joe:
My F14 Linux box is getting repaired so I can't test ... what i
On 2011/12/22 16:59, Reindl Harald wrote:
On 22.12.2011 23:52, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 12/22/2011 02:08 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Look up the manual "man dircolors". It's documented.
Yes, but only if you happen to understand the numeric codes and how they
interact. For somebody like me, who
On 2011/12/22 14:52, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 12/22/2011 02:08 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Look up the manual "man dircolors". It's documented.
Yes, but only if you happen to understand the numeric codes and how they
interact. For somebody like me, who has no need to know that type of thing, it's
si
On 12/22/2011 2:52 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
That's why my .bashrc contains this line:
alias ls=ls
That gets rid of the colors that somebody "helpfully" decided that
everybody wants.
Joe:
My F14 Linux box is getting repaired so I can't test ... what is this
alias changing about 'ls'? I don't r
On 22.12.2011 23:52, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 12/22/2011 02:08 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> Look up the manual "man dircolors". It's documented.
>
> Yes, but only if you happen to understand the numeric codes and how they
> interact. For somebody like me, who has
> no need to know that type of t
On 12/22/2011 02:08 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Look up the manual "man dircolors". It's documented.
Yes, but only if you happen to understand the numeric codes and how they
interact. For somebody like me, who has no need to know that type of
thing, it's simply gibberish. That's why my .bas
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 15:53:56 -0600, AK (Aaron) wrote:
> > Same here. Do : ls /bin/* and you will see he programs hat display
> > like: mount, umount, ping, su, fusermounnt, and ping6.
> >
> > I can't figure out what these programs have in common to be displayed in
> > a special color.
>
> What
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 15:48:27 -0600, AK (Aaron) wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-12-22 at 15:13 -0500, Richard Heck wrote:
> > When I do:
> > ls /bin/ping
> > I get "ping" displayed with black text on a red background. I don't see
> > anything special about its permissions. What's up? I ask because I'v
Aaron Konstam wrote:
I can't figure out what these programs have in common to be displayed in
a special color.
Aaron, did you receive my reply to the OP question?
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2011-December/410704.html
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To uns
On Thu, 2011-12-22 at 15:48 -0600, Aaron Konstam wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-12-22 at 15:13 -0500, Richard Heck wrote:
> > When I do:
> > ls /bin/ping
> > I get "ping" displayed with black text on a red background. I don't see
> > anything special about its permissions. What's up? I ask because I
On Thu, 2011-12-22 at 15:13 -0500, Richard Heck wrote:
> When I do:
> ls /bin/ping
> I get "ping" displayed with black text on a red background. I don't see
> anything special about its permissions. What's up? I ask because I've
> installed another program recently that has the same color d
Richard Heck wrote:
When I do:
ls /bin/ping
I get "ping" displayed with black text on a red background. I don't see
anything special about its permissions. What's up?
Fedora switched[1] from using the suid-bit to capabilities. If you wish
to see capabilities you can run "getcap" on the fi
On 22.12.2011 21:13, Richard Heck wrote:
>
> When I do:
> ls /bin/ping
> I get "ping" displayed with black text on a red background. I don't see
> anything special about its permissions.
> What's up? I ask because I've installed another program recently that has the
> same color display, a
When I do:
ls /bin/ping
I get "ping" displayed with black text on a red background. I don't see
anything special about its permissions. What's up? I ask because I've
installed another program recently that has the same color display, and
I'm trying to figure out why.
Richard
--
users ma
66 matches
Mail list logo
