-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Mon, 26 May 1997, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
> Ok..! Let's use PS1='[EMAIL PROTECTED]:\w\$ '... It's much better than '
> \\$'...
Yes!, please!, let's use PS1='[EMAIL PROTECTED]:\w\$ ' !
Or even better: PS1='[EMAIL PROTECTED]:\w\$ ' for root and PS1='\h:\w
On Thu, 22 May 1997, Chris Fearnley wrote:
> How about:
> PS1='\[\033[40;31m\]pwd: \[\033[40;33m\]\w \[\033[40;[EMAIL PROTECTED] '
> I'll repeat my conclusion: leave it as PS1="\\$ "
That's your `conclusion'? After _what_ thinking?
> and provide a
> customization app for sysadmins to edit /etc
On Wed, 21 May 1997, Chris Fearnley wrote:
> '=?iso-8859-1?Q?Nicol=E1s_Lichtmaier?= wrote:'
> >
> > So I say: PS1="[\\u] \\h:\\w\\$ " =D
> No, PS1='[EMAIL PROTECTED]:\w\$ ' !
> I guess this will become a flame war. So I'd prefer to leave prompt
> alone. Or maybe the boot disks can have
'Raul Miller wrote:'
>
>> '=?iso-8859-1?Q?Nicol=E1s_Lichtmaier?= wrote:'
>> > So I say: PS1="[\\u] \\h:\\w\\$ " =D
>On May 21, Chris Fearnley wrote
>> No, PS1='[EMAIL PROTECTED]:\w\$ ' !
>>
>I'd prefer PS1='\$ '
>
>However, if you want all that fanciness, a compromise is:
>PS1='[EMAIL PR
Hi,
>>"Mark" == Mark Eichin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> NOO We should _NOT_ use this name. I hate it (and its
>> probably
Mark> "Style sheets" then. :-)
Could we please come up with a term that has not already beeen
associated with some thing else? ;-). You say style sheet
> '=?iso-8859-1?Q?Nicol=E1s_Lichtmaier?= wrote:'
> > So I say: PS1="[\\u] \\h:\\w\\$ " =D
On May 21, Chris Fearnley wrote
> No, PS1='[EMAIL PROTECTED]:\w\$ ' !
>
> I guess this will become a flame war. So I'd prefer to leave prompt
> alone. Or maybe the boot disks can have a dialog scr
> NOO We should _NOT_ use this name. I hate it (and its probably
"Style sheets" then. :-)
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
On May 21, Brian Mays wrote
>
> Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > One thing that I have missed in this debate so far: a lot of the
> > configurations relevant to this discussion should really be adjustable per
> > user.
>
> Ideally, yes. I guess so many of us have single-user
On Wed, 21 May 1997, Brian Mays wrote:
| > With that in mind, wasn't there some dot file generator? Could that thing
| > be made to do this?
|
| Now you are talking about a program to be executed by each user that
| lists a series of possible configurations for each application and
| allows the
Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One thing that I have missed in this debate so far: a lot of the
> configurations relevant to this discussion should really be adjustable per
> user.
Ideally, yes. I guess so many of us have single-user systems that
this point tends to get overloo
# Function for Midnight Commander - see its help screens
mc() {
MC=/tmp/mc$$-"$RANDOM"
/usr/bin/mc -c -x -P "$@" > "$MC"
cd `cat "$MC"`
rm "$MC"
unset MC;
}
status_after_prompt() {
prompt_status=$?
if [ $prompt_status != 0 ]
then
I dont care how the prompt looks. Just pick one and dont leave it the way
it is. Who is the maintainer of the package in question? Let him decide.
On Wed, 21 May 1997, Chris Fearnley wrote:
>'=?iso-8859-1?Q?Nicol=E1s_Lichtmaier?= wrote:'
>>
>> So I say: PS1="[\\u] \\h:\\w\\$ " =D
>
>No, PS1
'=?iso-8859-1?Q?Nicol=E1s_Lichtmaier?= wrote:'
>
> So I say: PS1="[\\u] \\h:\\w\\$ " =D
No, PS1='[EMAIL PROTECTED]:\w\$ ' !
I guess this will become a flame war. So I'd prefer to leave prompt
alone. Or maybe the boot disks can have a dialog script to help the
user choose a prompt?
--
>Generally, after installing any system, I add this to ~/.profile for
>root:-
>
>alias rm="/bin/rm -i"
This is a BAD thing to do. If you want this use a different name, like:
alias del="/bin/rm -i"
Otherwise it is all too easy to get into the habit of doing
rm *
and picking the ones you w
On Tue, 20 May 1997, Enrique Zanardi wrote:
> On Tue, 20 May 1997, Nicol=E1s Lichtmaier wrote:
>
> > I think that this is the kind of thinking that is killing Debian.
> >=20
> > 1) Newbie setting doesn't mean annoying settings.
> > 2) `real men' like you can change those settings.
> > 3) Conf
I can put that into the chris-cust package ...
On Tue, 20 May 1997, Tom Lees wrote:
>On Mon, 19 May 1997, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
>> >Anybody should know that before typing "rm -rf *" or an equivolent,
>> >you THINK FIRST, every time.
>>
>> The problem does not arise when you type rm the firs
On Mon, 19 May 1997, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> >Anybody should know that before typing "rm -rf *" or an equivolent,
> >you THINK FIRST, every time.
>
> The problem does not arise when you type rm the first time but after you
> have some confidence and you think you know what you are doing.
>
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian Mays) wrote on 20.05.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I would not advocate implementing such a package this way. Most of
> the config files that we would be interested in fixing for newbies can
> include or source another file. Take sh-like shells for example. We
> would h
> "John" == John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> I don't think Debian is really aiming at newbies. (RedHat
John> is) Debian is aiming at the power user or admin type -- the
John> people that already know Unix.
But you have to consider the case of an ISP that wants to u
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Nicol=E1s_Lichtmaier?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I see a `config package' as a package that includes/modifies other
> packages conffiles. Using packages for this is ignoring the concept of a
> package. What if you remove one of these packages? What if some programs
> whose file
> "EZ" == Enrique Zanardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
EZ: The problem with that approach is that many of those "newbie"
EZ: settings are just a matter of taste. We don't want to set a
EZ: thousand of those parameters in hundreths of different config
EZ: files that will have to
On Tue, 20 May 1997, Enrique Zanardi wrote:
> On Tue, 20 May 1997, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
>
> > I think that this is the kind of thinking that is killing Debian.
> >
> > 1) Newbie setting doesn't mean annoying settings.
> > 2) `real men' like you can change those settings.
> > 3) Configur
Hi,
[This may well be orthogonal, or in addition to, the solutions discussed]
Maybe we could offer some example of tips and tricks? My
preffered prompt mechanism sets the xterm title to (like right now)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/var/tmp
with a short prompt of '__> ', or the above bec
On Tue, 20 May 1997, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
> I think that this is the kind of thinking that is killing Debian.
>
> 1) Newbie setting doesn't mean annoying settings.
> 2) `real men' like you can change those settings.
> 3) Configuration packages is an awful idea that goes against the idea
On Mon, 19 May 1997, Brian Mays wrote:
> This is why changing the default prompt for everyone is not a good
> idea. You guys can't even agree on what you want the new prompt to
> be. And if you want my personal preference, any prompt longer than
> '$ ' is too long. If I want to know what direct
On May 19, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote
> On Mon, 19 May 1997, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
> > > So I say: PS1="[\\u] \\h:\\w\\$ " =D
> > Too long. But better than nothing.
>
> It isn't too long...!
>
> [nick] newton:~/src/deb/lftp-0.11.1$
> [nick] newton:~/src/deb/lftp-0.11.1$
> [nick] newt
On 19 May 1997, John Goerzen wrote:
> I agree with most of what you are saying; however, I think you sorta
> missed the point I was trying to make (which is probably my fault
> because I didn't make it very clearly )
=)
> My problem is not so much with changing root's default prompt on new
> in
> Anybody should know that before typing "rm -rf *" or an equivalent,
> you THINK FIRST, every time.
And AFTER you type it.
The prompt doesn't make the slightest difference when the death knell sounds:
rm: .o: No such file or directory
and it dawns on you there was an extra space in the last
Oh, I see. Nevermind then -- what you're saying is that the "X
configurator" is at the level of an X based dselect -- so that's the
problem of the "diety" team, right? (Thus it's not something I need
to be particularly concerned with.) Thanks... _Mark_
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST
>Anybody should know that before typing "rm -rf *" or an equivolent,
>you THINK FIRST, every time.
The problem does not arise when you type rm the first time but after you
have some confidence and you think you know what you are doing.
Everybody knows what you should think first. But who does aft
The difference is that RedHat's X configurator configures not only X,
but also mail, news, printers, networking, etc. It's a configurator
that runs under X -- not really a configurator for XFree86.
If we are wanting to go that way; fine. I have no problem with it.
As long as we don't go so far a
Nicolás Lichtmaier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Most people that adopt Linux come from DOS. Linux is expanding the UNIX
> users base. I come from DOS-OS/2 too. I used Slackware, and I changed
> because it was a mess. Current newbies that start with RH won't change to
> Debian, they don't need to
This is why changing the default prompt for everyone is not a good
idea. You guys can't even agree on what you want the new prompt to
be. And if you want my personal preference, any prompt longer than
'$ ' is too long. If I want to know what directory I'm in, I just
pwd.
Instead of arguing back
On Mon, 19 May 1997, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > So I say: PS1="[\\u] \\h:\\w\\$ " =D
> Too long. But better than nothing.
It isn't too long...!
[nick] newton:~/src/deb/lftp-0.11.1$
[nick] newton:~/src/deb/lftp-0.11.1$
[nick] newton:~/src/deb/lftp-0.11.1$ ls
Or the other version:
[E
Too long when displayed. Not too long when specified.
Wit the hostname and the current directory I already run into more than 80
characters at times.
On Mon, 19 May 1997, Andreas Jellinghaus wrote:
>On May 19, Christoph Lameter wrote
>> > So I say: PS1="[\\u] \\h:\\w\\$ " =D
>>
>> Too lon
On May 19, Christoph Lameter wrote
> > So I say: PS1="[\\u] \\h:\\w\\$ " =D
>
> Too long. But better than nothing.
PS="[EMAIL PROTECTED]:\\w\\$ " ?
2 charaters shorter... :-)
regards, andreas
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
> So I say: PS1="[\\u] \\h:\\w\\$ " =D
Too long. But better than nothing.
--- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ ---
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble?
e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
On 18 May 1997, John Goerzen wrote:
> > Be prepared to receive lots of messages saying things like "unix is for
> > real men that can look manpages set their own prompts" and "we shouldn't
> > make any decision about the system's look and feel, the sysadm should"...
> > The kind of decisions tha
> If we want to be friendly to newbies, we can write an X configurator
> like RedHat; but I don't think that's what we want.
I've heard rumors of this, but not seen it -- how does it differ from
XF86Setup (not xf86config, which is probably what the debian
old-timers think of, but the new tk-based
Nicolás Lichtmaier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Be prepared to receive lots of messages saying things like "unix is for
> real men that can look manpages set their own prompts" and "we shouldn't
> make any decision about the system's look and feel, the sysadm should"...
> The kind of decisions
40 matches
Mail list logo
