LITTLEBLACKDOG.COM

hi all

intro:
in freeBSD, all texts are in white and gray, while with RedHat or Knoppix (as i tried) use different colors for texts.. for example folders have thier own color, files have their own color.. etc.. so we can easly differentiate between different components.

Why FreeBSD is Not as Beautiful as Linux

Laycander wrote:
Because FreeBSD tends to use their own software instead of GNU software. In this csae, it's tsch vs. Bash for shells. If you were to switch to Bash on your BSD box, and add the color profiles, it would look just as pretty as on Linux. A Linux distro can look just as ugly (no colors) if the shell wasn't setup to have colors, has nothing to do with the distro/OS

A- questions releated to the text above:-
1- can i say that Bash are for linux, and tcsh are for UNIX?
2- do i need to have Bash in order to install color profiles?
3- can i have color profiles with tcsh?
4- how to add color profiles for bash?
5- how to add color profiles for tcsh ?

B- other questions:-
1- what are bad sides in adding colors to freeBSD text interface?
2- why FreeBSD did not do that by it self just like Linux?
3- can any thing bad happen if I used colored text interfaces instead of using FreeBSD's default one (white and gray)?

the only bad side i can see is wasting RAM Embarassed

, but i think this is too minor to think about. do you agree with me?

eech55 wrote:

A- questions releated to the text above:-
1- can i say that Bash are for linux, and tcsh are for UNIX?
2- do i need to have Bash in order to install color profiles?
3- can i have color profiles with tcsh?
4- how to add color profiles for bash?
5- how to add color profiles for tcsh ?

i think their is a --color option for commands like ls. typically distro have those aliased to the actual command, something like alias ls="ls --color", but you'd have to man ls and alias to get the exact format.

i'm a bash guy, so i don't know to much about tcsh

Quote:
B- other questions:-
1- what are bad sides in adding colors to freeBSD text interface?
2- why FreeBSD did not do that by it self just like Linux?
3- can any thing bad happen if I used colored text interfaces instead of using FreeBSD's default one (white and gray)?

the only bad side i can see is wasting RAM , but i think this is too minor to think about. do you agree with me?

wasting ram is probably a non-issue, as the color option is used by ls. when ls is finished (which it's usually finished almost immediately) that ram is deallocated. FreeBSD probably doesn't do it for historical reasons which is basically because they are a) lazy or b) don't think the change will add any value. nothing bad will happen to you (except the FreeBSD Daemon mascott might come haunt you in your sleep Wink

).

Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 4:42 pm Post subject:

i have color Smile

in tcsh

setenv CLICOLOR 1

bash

export CLICOLOR=1

as for editors you need a good configuration file.. check out /usr/local/share/examples or /usr/share/examples

http://bsd.box.sk/newsread.php?newsid=79

Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 4:48 pm Post subject:

myself while colour is a good thing, it doesnt make a bit of diff as its' a server. I dont care how it looks, I jsut care that ti works.

and soup4you2 LTNS.

Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 4:55 pm Post subject:

creed wrote:
myself while colour is a good thing, it doesnt make a bit of diff as its' a server. I dont care how it looks, I jsut care that ti works.

and soup4you2 LTNS.

exactly!!!

i dont run any non-needed application on a server.. just gimme apache or oracle or whatever it's sole purpose in life is.. most of the time i run commands remotely so i never even get to see a actual terminal..

once you learn tcsh it's actually really nice.. been using it as my default shell for awhile now.. though bash still does scripting better.

Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 5:02 pm Post subject:

soup4you2 wrote:
creed wrote:
myself while colour is a good thing, it doesnt make a bit of diff as its' a server. I dont care how it looks, I jsut care that ti works.

and soup4you2 LTNS.

exactly!!!

i dont run any non-needed application on a server.. just gimme apache or oracle or whatever it's sole purpose in life is.. most of the time i run commands remotely so i never even get to see a actual terminal..

once you learn tcsh it's actually really nice.. been using it as my default shell for awhile now.. though bash still does scripting better.

guess this job (system admin) is teaching me somethign after all

one thing i miss when i'm doing my job is being able to log in remotely. damn winblows.

eech55 wrote:
A- questions releated to the text above:-
1- can i say that Bash are for linux, and tcsh are for UNIX?

Can't really say that. Because there really isn't a "Unix" per se anymore. Unix is not an operating system, it's a concept, a "way of life" if you will. With the nit picking aside, Bash belongs to the GNU OSS people. It's licensed under the GNU GPL license, other than the fact that it will compile and run in Linux, that's about the extent of their relationship.

tcsh is BSD licensed. This is what I meant when I said FreeBSD tends to use its own software rather than GNU software. GNU software is GPL licensed. FreeBSD predominately uses BSD licensed software. So it's more political differences. Of course, you can intermix the 2 different software like use GNU software in FreeBSD, and BSD software in Linux. Most things are trivial, but for example something note worthy: the C runtime library. "libc" is different from "glibc." Whenever you see a "g" in front of the program name, usually it means that it's associated with GNU, that the software itself is in some way a part of the GNU foundation. Or it can simply mean that it's GPL licensed. Thirdly, Gnome apps sometimes start with a G for obvious reasons.

FreeBSD has deeper roots than Linux, it's been around longer (its source code at least). Goes as far back as the time where color monitors were not yet available. We've had color terminals long before Linux came around.

Moderator Joined: 26 May 2001 Posts: 8155 Location: Borneo

Gnome programs start with a g because they are grap.

P&R doesn't have enough wars says the KDE user Wink

Leg Humper Joined: 01 Jun 2004 Posts: 4702 Location: Utah

csign wrote:
Gnome programs start with a g because they are grap.

P&R doesn't have enough wars says the KDE user

Yep. If I am using a WM on Linux, it's KDE. If it's a server, I probobly won't even install X.Org, and if I do, I won't have it enabled by default, so it isn't running unless I type "startx". Smile

Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 5:27 pm Post subject:

thanks a lot... very userful information..... i'll try that.

what if i changed the tcsh or bash color.. will that be seen when i try to connect to it remotely using telnet?

what if i changed the tcsh or bash color.. will that be seen when i try to connect to it remotely using ssh?

Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 8:18 pm Post subject:

eech55 wrote:
what if i changed the tcsh or bash color.. will that be seen when i try to connect to it remotely using telnet?

what if i changed the tcsh or bash color.. will that be seen when i try to connect to it remotely using ssh?

No. The color settings only affect the local shell.

Leg Humper Joined: 01 Jun 2004 Posts: 4702 Location: Utah

eech55 wrote:
thanks a lot... very userful information..... i'll try that.

what if i changed the tcsh or bash color.. will that be seen when i try to connect to it remotely using telnet?

what if i changed the tcsh or bash color.. will that be seen when i try to connect to it remotely using ssh?

Telnet is the devil. Use SSH. Smile

Laycander wrote:

eech55 wrote:

Quote:

creed wrote:

soup4you2 wrote:

creed wrote:

eech55 wrote:

csign wrote:

Lycander wrote:

eech55 wrote:

eech55 wrote:

Lycander wrote: