They all laughed on Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 13:32 when Mike Meyer said: > In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Sergey Babkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed: > > >From: Bill Vermillion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > has some > > >color vision problem. Mine is a bit more than others. Everytime > > >I get called to work on a Linux system, I have to go in and disable > > >the colors as the reds and other colors become very hard to see > > >against a dark background. The problem is the luminance value of > > >colors such a red is quite low compared to others. > > The problem with Linux colors is that they have been > > designed to be used on the white background which is > > the xterm's default (and which I hate as it's tough > > on my eyes). Since I usually use the black background, > > I disable them too. > > So where do linux's blasted ls colors come from? It prints some file > type as green. Green on white is simply bad news, whether or not you > have vision problems. I always have to go disable them (and some linux > distros make them *hard* to disable).
I just checked in on one Linux machine I admin - SuSE 9.2 - and the colors are set with the variable LS_OPTIONS. I've set LS_OPTIONS to '-N --color=none -T 0' And looking at the .bashrc there is also a test for the binary dircolors, and then looks for user files .dir_colors I also notice that as shipped the .bashrc has a comment line that says If LS_COLROS is set but empty the terminal has no colors. It is spelled COLROS not COLORS - but that's just cosmetic and sloppy. Bill -- Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
