|
|
| Author |
Message |
dang
|
|
Link it to Co-op!
| 
Jul 23 18:29 UTC 1998 |
Is there an item elsewhere on Grex that you think should be linked to
co-op? If so, either enter the item here, or send mail to one of the
fw's and we will link it as soon as possible.
|
| 34 responses total. |
aruba
|
|
response 1 of 34:
|
Jul 27 14:16 UTC 1998 |
Yo, coop fws, the last 2 items in coop10 did not get linked over to coop11.
Could you remedy that? Thanks.
|
scott
|
|
response 2 of 34:
|
Jul 30 10:56 UTC 1998 |
Item 124 (ISDN and Centrex) ought to be linked.
|
janc
|
|
response 3 of 34:
|
Aug 1 01:29 UTC 1998 |
Yup. Also item 123 (Minutes from the July 22, 1998 Grex Board Meeting).
Since the agenda for that meeting was linked, it only makes sense to
link the minutes too.
|
void
|
|
response 4 of 34:
|
Aug 2 21:45 UTC 1998 |
the items have now been linked.
|
aruba
|
|
response 5 of 34:
|
Aug 3 02:22 UTC 1998 |
Thanks, Dru.
|
dang
|
|
response 6 of 34:
|
May 7 21:52 UTC 1999 |
For those of you using Backtalk, I've changed the color scheme. Also,
I've turned on HTML without pictures.
Let the flame war begin!
|
remmers
|
|
response 7 of 34:
|
May 8 10:49 UTC 1999 |
Um, I really don't like the new color scheme - it's tiring to look at
for any length of time.
|
dang
|
|
response 8 of 34:
|
May 8 15:22 UTC 1999 |
That's all right. I'm going to change it again soon. I'm sort of
experimenting.
|
hhsrat
|
|
response 9 of 34:
|
May 9 03:39 UTC 1999 |
Having HTML enabled should make things interesting.
I agree with John. These new colors are hard on the eyes.
|
remmers
|
|
response 10 of 34:
|
May 9 12:25 UTC 1999 |
I find black text on some sort of pastel or off-white background
to be easiest on the eyes. So my suggestion would be:
Text: 000000
Background: Something like F8F0E8, FFF0F0, FFF0D8, FCF0E0
|
dang
|
|
response 11 of 34:
|
May 10 18:59 UTC 1999 |
Unfortunately, dark text on light backgrounds seriously hurt my eyes.
To each his own. I'll look at them, and see what they're like.
|
hhsrat
|
|
response 12 of 34:
|
May 11 02:05 UTC 1999 |
I like this one.
|
remmers
|
|
response 13 of 34:
|
May 11 13:49 UTC 1999 |
It'll do.
|
toking
|
|
response 14 of 34:
|
May 11 14:38 UTC 1999 |
This could get rather
obnoxious
|
dang
|
|
response 15 of 34:
|
May 11 16:02 UTC 1999 |
This is my attempt at psudo dark on light, with the light not so light
that it hurts my eyes. Is the contrast too low for anyone? I, of
course, have a true-color screen on all my computers, so I don't know
what it's like with 65K or 256 colors.
|
pfv
|
|
response 16 of 34:
|
May 11 16:41 UTC 1999 |
I told NS a week back to use only my own colors.
Teach BackTalk to store and use the users colors in the user
record for the conf.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 17 of 34:
|
May 11 18:11 UTC 1999 |
"psudo dark"?
|
mdw
|
|
response 18 of 34:
|
May 11 18:17 UTC 1999 |
(If it were completely dark, it wouldn't have any color, now would it?)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 19 of 34:
|
May 11 18:23 UTC 1999 |
I thought "psudo" sounded like a laundry detergent. What does it mean in
this context?
|
keesan
|
|
response 20 of 34:
|
May 11 23:04 UTC 1999 |
Jim asks dang whether true-color is a typo for two-color. And points out that
I have a two-color screen, amber on black.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 21 of 34:
|
May 12 01:40 UTC 1999 |
Amber is only one color.
True-color is supposed to mean that the monitor displays at least as many
different colors as the humna eye can distinguish. (i.e., some obcenely high
number of colors, most definitely NOT two) :-)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 22 of 34:
|
May 12 02:25 UTC 1999 |
The human eye can only distinguish 3 colors. The brain does the rest.
|
dang
|
|
response 23 of 34:
|
May 12 03:00 UTC 1999 |
re: 17-19 no, I meant "psudo dark on light". It's not really dark on
light, because it's not really light, but I'm hoping it's close enough
to light to have sufficient contrast, and close enough to dark that it
doesn't hurt my eyes.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 24 of 34:
|
May 12 16:59 UTC 1999 |
(...my 'witty' cracks were because there is no such word/prefix 'psudo'...)
|