On 08/02/2013 12:30 PM, David wrote:
As for the colors? Linux is about choice. You don't like them? Remove them and go on your merry way. Many others like them since you are the only user to complain.
Or, and this is a distinct possibility, I'm the only one who doesn't like them and is aware that ls doesn't have them by default. If all you've ever had is color ls, you might not even know that you don't have to have them. My objection is to making it so that everybody has it simply because the person who set up the default .bashrc likes it. (I remember, back in the '90s, when the default .Xresources [I think] had some awful, drab color scheme along with the comment that this is what whoever set it up liked, and if you didn't like it, tough.)
BTW. Those horrible colors have been there long enough that I don't recall just when they first started using them in Linux. I do remember them from DOS 3.0.
Yeah; I remember those days, and CP/M, too. There's no good reason, today, to use the codes directly. Have a shell file that assigns human-readable names to all of them and call that from whatever scripts use colors, so that users can tell what the colors are. With that, and a printout of the script assigning colors to file types, color ls becomes usable. Without it, it's gibberish to me, and probably a large percentage of others.
-- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
