| |||||||||||||
Colour lsColour lsPosted Dec 2, 2004 16:45 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304)In reply to: Colour ls by ewen Parent article: Debian and the hot babe problem
dark blue on black, there's a good combination! Not.It's fine for backup files and other totally nonimportant files. (Assuming your background colour is black, of course.) I whipped up a script some time back which you tell your terminal background colour and it ensures that your colour-ls and grep colourization settings don't clash with some horrid seddery. (This is necessary when installing software for use in a work environment where some people colour their xterms like fruit salad. Bright red backgrounds and green and orange text, I ask you...)
(Log in to post comments)
Colour ls Posted Dec 2, 2004 21:25 UTC (Thu) by ewen (subscriber, #4772) [Link] dark blue on black, there's a good combination! Not.It's fine for backup files and other totally nonimportant files. (Assuming your background colour is black, of course.) The problem, of course, is that at least with my terminal setup (off-white on black), these "dark blue on black" combinations turn up, with most vendors defaults, for directory names. Which don't quite count as "totally nonimportant"... While you're perhaps right that it could be used for something unimportant, I prefer simply not to colour the things I don't care about and they become "and other stuff". My main point, however, was that the defaults were fairly terrible, which everyone seems to agree with. I too have various shell, sed, etc magic, to make for better defaults and deal with black-background and white-background better. But it shouldn't be necessary to fix every system I use; the vendor defaults should be better, and at least default to "reasonably useable on most setups". Ewen
|
|||||||||||||