Posted Dec 2, 2004 3:48 UTC (Thu) by ewen
Parent article: Debian and the hot babe problem
IMHO the biggest problem with colour ls is not the notion of having ls output coloured (which is sometimes useful), but the fact that the default colour schemes (at least as used by various distributions) are seemingly optimised for minimal readability (dark blue on black, there's a good combination! Not.) and/or maximum garishness (often both at the same time).
I have much the same view on colour syntax highlighting in editors. Done properly it can be quite useful. But the defaults generally show the feature in its worst light (unreadable colour combinations, a different colour for every word, etc).
My solution to both is to have a minimal set of useful colours which I carry from machine to machine, installing them each time the defaults bother me. (My .vimrc uses only four colours for virtually everything and is quite usable, unlike the common defaults. I have a few more ls colours, but they're only used for obscure things.)
Perhaps the distributions could give some thought to more useful sets of colours. (I notice more recent RedHat Enterprise Server versions at least have two sets of colours for dark-background and light-background situations. It's unfortunate that it's detection of which to use doesn't work as well as might be desired -- _my_ xterms have black backgrounds.)
to post comments)