3 ms·
I always find pitches like this a little obnoxious: > You list files hundreds of times a day. Why spend your time squinting at black and white text? Uh, `ls`
by zopa 5y ago
I always find pitches like this a little obnoxious:
> You list files hundreds of times a day. Why spend your time squinting at black and white text?
Uh, `ls` has colors, if you know how or some benevolent distro-maintainer did.
Now there's a ton of value in sane defaults and cutting out cruft and targeting specific use-cases, so not here to criticize the tool, at all. Just the marketing. Why not talk about what's actually special and different about it?
- bayindirh 5y agoWhen the motivation about replacing something is just colors/icons and other fluff, I just don't consider the tool worth it. Also, changing default tools are fine for a single system, but when you're managing many, and with a team, that's a big no no.
- thebeardisred 5y agoThanks for writing the bulk of my comment for me. :) The thing I would add is that tools like this cater to introductory users, not power users. They're for the person who tweaks every cosmetic default to the point where they need a setup of "dotfiles" to be functional. Meanwhile, tools like this often skip over important implementation details like extended file-system attributes.
- userbinator 5y agoI actually prefer my ls output to be monochrome, and the first time I encountered a coloured one I turned it off since some of the colours were nearly unreadable (who thought dark blue and gray on black was a good idea?)
- jagger27 5y agoThat’s not ls’s fault. That’s just your terminal's colour scheme.