4 ms·
It is even poorly implemented in such ubiquitous tools as ls. For example if I always want output to be sorted by last modified the _only_ point of configuratio
by bhawks 4y ago
It is even poorly implemented in such ubiquitous tools as ls. For example if I always want output to be sorted by last modified the _only_ point of configuration is the command line. But I can control colors via either the command line or an environment variable.
I've lost count of the numbers of times I've straced commands to see where they pull configuration from or grepped thru codebases looking for getenv calls. Any unix consensus for configuration is in theory only not practice.
File location is actually pretty germane to precedence. A more "global" configuration cannot be applied if the program is looking for it in the wrong location in the first place. Let's not even discuss the horrible state of where to store local configurations in a users home directory. As long as it starts with a . it's fine :).
I've used Linux exclusively for nearly 20 years - but not because I loved its configuration management story.
- __turbobrew__ 4y agols is a very poor example as it was a program built in v1 Unix over 50 years ago which has remained the same due to backwards compatibility and being standardized in POSIX. We are arguing over whether the glass is half empty or half full. I can also come up with plenty of examples of poorly designed programs, but I can also bring up examples of programs which are not perfect but much more usable than ls. I’m sure you could have also picked a program which is better designed than ls as well.