5 ms·
Maybe. Whether the term "modern" was used or not, my hunch is that the response would be the same, for it is forbidden for one to deign to make these kinds of
by SmirkingRevenge 9y ago
Maybe. Whether the term "modern" was used or not, my hunch is that the response would be the same, for it is forbidden for one to deign to make these kinds of changes to fundamental Unix commands, and is tantamount to a kind of heresy (never mind that GNU implementations did this all the time wrt. original Unix implementations).
Religion... never cared for it. Re-invent the whole crappy (though still less crappy than alternatives) Unix command line, I say.
- vostok 9y agoOf course you hear the same complaints about GNU Coreutils. In general complaining about GNU-isms and GNU bloat is a time-honored tradition
- thecrazyone 9y agoAmen! (:giggles:) I doubly agree for reinventing fundamentals or attempting to. To be fair, given how resilient unix tools have been, this following and to some extent the harshness is to be expected, I think
- wvh 9y agoA lot of stuff depends on the basic Unix commmands though. It might be better to invent a new command name if the output differs in ways that would break both human and machine expectations. The difference between BSD and GNU versions of some commands is already enough to trip me up even after all these years. You expect `ls` to be `ls` on anything remotely POSIX/Unix-y. I like the ideas in this tool, but it's very end-user oriented and by being written in Rust with stuff like minor Git functionality built in, definitely not as general purpose as a command like plain old `ls`.