On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 3:26 PM, markus schnalke <meillo_AT_marmaro.de> wrote:
> [2010-02-01 13:06] Anselm R Garbe <anselm_AT_garbe.us>
>> On 1 February 2010 12:52, <jonathan.slark_AT_talktalk.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > This is my PC and I decide what colours are used.
>>
>> To be fair Uriel isn't completely wrong. In an ideal world everyone
>> would just use the software as is and not waste time on fiddling
>> around with colors and such. But obviously a lot of people like
>> customizing things/making them different to the default. I'm not sure
>> what the reason is [...]
>
> Reasons to change the colors are that this may improve your
> productivity or comfort.
You idiots keep missing the point: if you need to change the colors to
improve your productivity then either the original colors were totally
broken and the developer that picked them should get a clue and fix
them, or your brain is broken, and you should stop using computers if
you can't deal with sane colors.
One has to wonder by what miracle of god people managed to work for
centuries without being able to change the color of their pens and
papers!
uriel
> The point it, that colors are nearly completely unrelated to the
> functionality of the program. They are only cosmetic, and thus
> everthing related to them should not add complexity in any way.
>
> I'd adjust the colors on my computer though, but by editing the code
> directly.
>
> But tagging rules are an example of custumization of dwm, that does
> not directly changes it's functions, but how it operates in the
> specific environment. This is similar to mailcap, termcap and the
> like.
>
> In my eyes, this is where ``configuration'' is important. (In contrast
> to colors, which are only cosmetic, and layouting algorithms which are
> basic functionality and thus should be changed in the main source
> directly, if at all.)
>
>
> meillo
>
>
Received on Mon Feb 01 2010 - 21:36:49 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Feb 01 2010 - 21:48:02 UTC