Re: Support 24-bit terminals

[Maël Nison]

> Suppose that you had to deal with people who select facts to make them appear
different from an unbiased presentation?  Apparently it's outside your
experience.

That seems a bit rude and uncalled for, Thomas.

I haven't wrote this list, nor I have contributed to improve it, but it seems to me it does a pretty good job explaining which terminal currently support truecolors, and which don't. It also clearly states which applications support it, and which (major) applications don't. All in all, it seems pretty objective and relies mainly on facts. Things your previous posts actually lack, otherwise I wouldn't have took the time to ask you further clarifications.

Le lun. 20 févr. 2017 à 18:22, Thomas Dickey <address@hidden> a écrit :

On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 01:30:49PM +0000, Maël Nison wrote:
> Hello,
>
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 06:40:47PM +0300, Rami Ylimäki wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > According to [1], 24-bit terminals have become a de facto standard.
> >
> > The source is worthless.
>
> Can I ask why? Do you imply that the terminal emulators do not actually
> support 24-bit colors, and that the referenced gist lies?

Suppose that you had to deal with people who select facts to make them appear
different from an unbiased presentation?  Apparently it's outside your
experience.

I'm not interested in discussing it, since I pointed out my side of it long
ago, have gotten exactly no useful discussion before or after.

--
Thomas E. Dickey <address@hidden>
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net