[Techtalk] rxvt - was: Re: End key no longer goes to EOL
hobbit at aloss.ukuu.org.uk
Sun Jan 13 21:48:13 EST 2002
On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 12:57:43PM -0700 or thereabouts, Val Henson wrote:
> in an office (now I telecommute from home), I felt that it was my duty
> to have an extremely pretty tricked-out desktop in order to show my
> co-workers how wimpy Windows NT was. :) I had a beautiful metallic
Laugh. I know what you mean. Just "happening to" change the themes
on the fly in front of friends and have them go "Wow, what was
that?" was a great way to introduce Linux without getting into
slagging off what they used.
> pixmap for the background, a selection of matching pixmaps for Eterm
> backgrounds (randomly selected), and translucent window move enabled.
> Now that I'm at home, I have the default desktop pixmap and all my
> windows are black background/white foreground. :)
Yes. When I got my own machine which could actually run X (for
years I used a little vt420 from DEC and text only), I spent a
good few weeks mucking around with everything. My husband called
it "Mac-dinking" :) I have all those setups around somewhere
still, but now I stick with one window manager, a plain background
which is easy on my eyes, and things that are fast rather than
pretty. With 16 out of the 21 windows currently open being
terminals, plain and non-stressy on the eyes is good.
Has anyone come across a theory a friend of mine once told me,
to do with appropriate backgrounds for people with long and
short sight? He can't remember the references, but recalls
reading that people with short sight generally benefitted from
amber and brown colours; and people with long sight did better
with lilacs and purples.
Telsa (who apparently uses exactly the wrong combination :))
More information about the Techtalk