Re: blue on black is unreadable
On 24-Mar-00, 03:22 (CST), Peter Cordes <peter@llama.nslug.ns.ca> wrote:
> > From: Steve Greenland <stevegr@debian.org>
> > Because that's what xterms do (by default) on every other single X
> > implementation ever done? (Ok, that's probably an exageration...but not
> > completely misleading, either.)
>
> Is that enough of a reason to not change it? Does it break any programs
> specifically?
It doesn't break programs, particularly, but it breaks configurations --
people whove changed only the foreground or background, or people who've
set up other program's coloring to work on a black-on-white xterm.
> (I assume you have a nice DIRCOLORS setting that fixes that, though.)
No, I think colored ls is the spawn of the devil. :-) (Actually I
find colored ls a huge distraction, and all the information I need is
provided by the '-F' option of ls)
> > (I wonder if the preference for light-on-dark vs dark-on-light depends
> > on ambient light conditions?)
>
> I usually like to work in a relatively dark room. I think I'm nocturnal or
> something (looks at clock... :(
And I tend to work in well lit rooms, even at night -- so from our
amazing sample of two, there is a correlation!
[*big snip*]
You've got a lot of valid points; I agree that black-on-white xterms do
glare a little, although I've never had a real problem with them (when
I use other people's systems, I hardly ever mess with the colors, even
for a few days of work.) But the current defaults are defensible: it's
the "world-wide X standard default". Anything else amounts to personal
preference and will promote a continuous stream of bug reports and
complaints.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <vmole@swbell.net>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
Reply to: