It would seem the bash code in this question could be syntax highlighted. Why isn't it?
It could be; this is largely done per-tag now.
1could be, should be, Here I think, the shell, and maybe the c code, as we have a little c. Though c is much less important. But we have a lot of shell Jan 11, 2011 at 12:29
We have activated highlighting and used the following rules:
[bash] = lang-bsh
[shell] = lang-sh [sh] = lang-sh
[csh] = lang-csh
[awk] = default
For more details on how this works, see: Changes to syntax highlighting
might want to do zsh to sh or maybe even bash (it's largely compat to bash) Jan 12, 2011 at 2:25
I guess that the code block is different on every SE site. For example, on SO the majority of them are for programming code snippets, so it makes sense to highlight certain keywords and patterns. Here, however, I think the majority of code blocks are for sections in log file or configuration directives, so it may not be appropriate to highlight all code blocks. In fact, I haven't seen any question on Unix SE with code highlighting, so I think here they are all like the
Another possibility: we are still in beta, and maybe beta sites do not have code highlighting?