Re: colorls in base

[Timo Buhrmester <fstd.lkml%gmail.com@localhost>]

> To me it's the gloriously colorful that keep arguing that other people     
> argue "but it isn't pretty".                                               
Care to elaborate?

> Prettiness is the last thing that concerns me, cloaking information with
> gleeful colorized flashlights and blinding me with candy colored dots is.
Sorry, I wasn't aware how messed up cognition can be.  Which color
is the most blinding to you?  Does the 'cloaking' aspect increase or
decrease with the increase/decrease in intensity/brightness, for
information printed in that particular color?

As for the blinding candy colored dots, while I'm not sure where you're
seeing those, is the degree of blinding related to their size or their
frequency, or variance in color?  Are subpixel errors on color displays
on the 'most tolerable' or on the 'most blinding' end of the spectrum?
Do you get an afterimage when looking away after staring at a blinding
colorful dot for a few seconds?

> If I wanted marketing, I'd replace shell output with a web site.
How's marketing related to this?  Color == marketing?

> You may use colors all day long, it's as simple as installing a color-ls
> program.
That has already been established and is besides the point here.

> Next time it's not about colorized output but some other feature of
> "program found somewhere else". According to some we already have to
> replace 30% of NetBSD to make it usuable, a measly colorized ls won't
> be enough.
I've rarely seen this many logical fallacies condensed into one short
email.  Hats off to you.