Have to disagree slightly with this. Solarized is a great starting point, but, last time I checked, using the provided mapping table leads bold green, bold blue, and (most importantly) nonbold white to all become nearly-indistinguishable shades of grey. This alone damages the utility of the normally-colorized output of `ls`, as well as any tools that expect bold and nonbold versions of the same color to be roughly the same hue.
If you can stand losing Solarized's ability to swap back and forth between light and dark modes, I highly recommend tweaking it to your needs rather then relying on the default.
I switched to Tim Pope's vividchalk.vim and have been quite happy ever since:
Kidding aside, I do do all my coding in an xterm that's had the font set to Glass Tty VT220 and the color set to one of those. Text decoration for highlighting purposes is done with our old friends bold, underline, and reverse video. But I'm retro like that.
EDIT: Of course, real hackers use a rainbow shell prompt. (http://www.termsys.demon.co.uk/vtansi.htm) Building one of these is left as an exercise for the reader.
1. Screen. Screen allowed me to colorize the hardstatusline at the bottom of the page. You can also set the hardstatus line so it updates to show the open application. Watch the video at the bottom of the screen and when I open Vim and how it updates the tab name on the hardstatus line.
2. Using zsh. Zsh allows you to set the right hand prompt and its color.
3. Using Xterm. Xterm allow me to launch it with any parameters controlling font, background color, foreground color, font size etc. The font I found that work the best was "Liberation Mono".
4. Colorize the prompt. Pretty standard.
Given how difficult regexs are to write properly, this probably doesn't scale well. Sadly, there isn't a DOM for terminal applications.
I've recently seen a system that can 'record' your terminal session for replay on the Web - http://ascii.io/ - whose 'recorder' forks off a psuedo terminal for this (https://github.com/sickill/ascii.io-cli/blob/master/bin/asci...). Would something like Grc use a similar approach or is there another way?
1. export your real $PATH to eg $REAL_PATH
2. clear $PATH (or set it to some dummy value)
3. Attach a wrapper script to command_not_found_handler, which would call the original command with REAL_PATH and pipes it to your filter (or colorizer or whatever).
Ascii.io transforms these terminal escape sequences into html/css, so Grc should work fine with it.
I understand that part. But there's a screenshot where a "ping" is being done at a normal looking terminal and it just works without being explicitly piped through a program that does the above. What's the mechanism for piping all the terminal output through another process?
But then again I do like some fancy stuff. And I noticed the author uses a unicode char in his prompt.
While it breaks the \$ functionality ($|#) it looks neat, and I didn't think of that.
pretty cool export PS1="\u@\h \w ʎ"
So "Start by assuming OSX" isn't THAT much of a smarmy reply.
Lies! brew edit grc shows that it's just plain grc 1.4.
echo 'source "`brew --prefix grc`/etc/grc.bashrc"' >> ~/.bashrc
It uses the same idea of config files specifying what regexes to look for and how to color them. This tools looks a little more full-featured and tested though.
Also, I only thought of applying it to highlighting log files. I didn't think of using aliases to improve the appearance of regular terminal commands.
I tried a custom git log query that coloured the custom ordered responses. Rather than showing the text in colour, there were inline codes being displayed.