Re: [dev] [st] bold as bright (again)

On 1 Apr 2011, at 3:07 pm, Stefan Mark wrote:

> On 01.04.2011 16:01, Ethan Grammatikidis wrote:
>>
>> On 1 Apr 2011, at 2:56 pm, Stefan Mark wrote:
>>
>>> On 01.04.2011 15:50, Ethan Grammatikidis wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 1 Apr 2011, at 2:06 pm, pancake wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You may see some other differences... and the missuse of bright
>>>>> when
>>>>> bold
>>>>> sometimes hurts my eyes... but some programs just are hard to read
>>>>> without
>>>>> it...
>>>>
>>>> Why does no-one ever seem to consider just not using programs
>>>> which are
>>>> broken this badly, or at least filing serious bug reports on
>>>> them? It's
>>>
>>> They are not broken. As far as i understand it, both ways are
>>> correct.
>>> Early terminals did not have bold fonts, so bold text was done using
>>> higher brightness (which actually looked bold on these Eye burning
>>> machines).
>>
>> If "eye burning" is not broken, what is? That's my point.
>>
> Some people like it, some dont. It fits the standard (i think, seems a
> bit complicated).

Some people like it so applications are made which hurt other
people's eyes and then you find there's no good alternative to these
apps... The only answers I can see are limitation and configuration,
but the latter of course tends to suck and the former reeks of
rigourous standards. Perhaps we need a suckless htop, *lol*.
Received on Fri Apr 01 2011 - 19:51:42 CEST