5 ms·

Yet another example of why I don't trust any software that markets itself as "modern". In another 20 years, ls will still work perfectly fine.

michaelmior 3y ago
And it will still lack many of the features that exa has. Although it's no longer maintained, I suspect it will also continue to work for a long time. There's also a fork that is still maintained. Personally, I tend to avoid using replacements for POSIX tools in any shell scripts where possible for this reason. But in terms of what I use day-to-day in interactive sessions, I'll take whatever improvements modern tools will give.
- blowski 3y ago
  a.k.a. tradeoffs. You can have more features for less stability, so you need to decide what you care more about in a given context.
  - michaelmior 3y ago
    Absolutely. (Although I'm not convinced that exa or a fork won't still function perfectly fine in 20 years.)
sod 3y ago
The owner of a repository dying (assumption) is an example why you don't trust modern software? The active maintainers moved the project to a shared repository with a different name 2 years after the creator was seen anywhere.
- sbergot 3y ago
  You could argue that "modern" versions of old tools with a bus factor of 1 are harder to trust.
  - JetSpiegel 3y ago
    What's the bus factor of coreutils?
  - fkyoureadthedoc 3y ago
    You could, but it doesn't seem relevant to this post.
    - HelloNurse 3y ago
      The bus has come, and this is the best possible rescue.
- sillysaurusx 3y ago
  (Not to take away from your point.) According to https://bsago.me/tech-notes/feed.json https://bsago.me/tech-notes/feed.json the creator was active in September 2022, one year ago. So it’s probably best to assume they’re ok. Personally, I view it as a big success for open source. Someone can make something cool and vanish, and it still lives on via fork. It’s hard to think of any other type of work where that’s possible.
- bombolo 3y ago
  [dead]
devnullbrain 3y ago
And exa users will still be allowed to use ls
unscaled 3y ago
And so will exa, probably. And if it won't, it will be forked. Which is exactly the reason "ls" is working perfectly fine for you today. The original AT&T UNIX "ls" has been forked over and over again and rewritten from scratch several times. You're using an evolved fork of this "ls" if you're using macOS or BSD, but if you're on Linux you're using a rewrite (GNU coreutils ls), and if you're running BusyBox you're using yet another rewrite. All of these different rewrites and forks aren't really compatible, and you can't reliably use anything beyond what's in the POSIX standard if you want your scripts to run on multiple OSes. I'm not dissing "ls" - it's an impressive, if old, piece of software that served us well, but it's not inherently more survivable because it's old. It died (in terms of being "forked by another maintainer") many times over, enough to make exa and eza blush. ls survied because people need it, and I that most of the highly popular rewrite-in-Rust programs are here to stay for the same reasons. Ripgrep, exa, bat and fd are probably part of the club now. "ls" is probably not going to die either. The POSIX standard is going to keep at least the least common denominator version alive for a long time. But for many people it could go the way that "ed" or "more" have gone. And here is a good story: "ed" still survived in POSIX as-is, while "vi" died and had to be replaced by stevie and and elvis, and then by vim. Nowadays vim is also been replaced by neovim in many circles. And yet, how many people keep using "ed"? Who cares if it's stable, when vi and its descendants run circles around it?
- dahfizz 3y ago
  I am not anti-rewrite or anti-port. There exist good reasons to rewrite software. However, being "modern" is not a good reason. The gnu authors were not motivated to write the coreutils simply for the sake of modernity. And that is why their fork of ls has much greater staying power than all the "modern" forks.
  - koromak 3y ago
    Sometimes its just for fun. I wouldn't install use exa on my CICD pipelines, but on my own machine? Sure. I like the pretty colors. If it breaks moving back to ls is fine.
  - burntsushi 3y ago
qalmakka 3y ago
I use `exa` (and now `eza`) because it provides a better experience than GNU `ls`, IMHO. Sure, I don't _need_ it, but it's nice. I don't see any downside, especially since I've aliased it to `ls` since time immemorial and thus I only need to re-alias eza to ls again.
- 59nadir 3y ago
  > I use `exa` (and now `eza`) because it provides a better than GNU `ls`, IMHO. A better what?
  - qalmakka 3y ago
    You got me before I corrected my comment :)
benrutter 3y ago
I've seen this take a lot in the thread but I don't really get it. Exa is a drop in ls replacement- if it breaks (which it hasn't), go back to using ls? As long as there's a reliable built in, I'm pretty happy having the possibility of needing to switch it out for some added convenience.
- 59nadir 3y ago
  It's not a drop-in replacement. `lsd` is, as far as I can see.

michaelmior 3y ago

And it will still lack many of the features that exa has. Although it's no longer maintained, I suspect it will also continue to work for a long time. There's also a fork that is still maintained. Personally, I tend to avoid using replacements for POSIX tools in any shell scripts where possible for this reason. But in terms of what I use day-to-day in interactive sessions, I'll take whatever improvements modern tools will give.

blowski 3y ago
a.k.a. tradeoffs. You can have more features for less stability, so you need to decide what you care more about in a given context.
- michaelmior 3y ago
  Absolutely. (Although I'm not convinced that exa or a fork won't still function perfectly fine in 20 years.)

sod 3y ago

The owner of a repository dying (assumption) is an example why you don't trust modern software? The active maintainers moved the project to a shared repository with a different name 2 years after the creator was seen anywhere.

sbergot 3y ago
You could argue that "modern" versions of old tools with a bus factor of 1 are harder to trust.
- JetSpiegel 3y ago
  What's the bus factor of coreutils?
- fkyoureadthedoc 3y ago
  You could, but it doesn't seem relevant to this post.
  - HelloNurse 3y ago
    The bus has come, and this is the best possible rescue.
sillysaurusx 3y ago
(Not to take away from your point.) According to https://bsago.me/tech-notes/feed.json https://bsago.me/tech-notes/feed.json the creator was active in September 2022, one year ago. So it’s probably best to assume they’re ok. Personally, I view it as a big success for open source. Someone can make something cool and vanish, and it still lives on via fork. It’s hard to think of any other type of work where that’s possible.
bombolo 3y ago
[dead]

devnullbrain 3y ago

And exa users will still be allowed to use ls

unscaled 3y ago

And so will exa, probably. And if it won't, it will be forked. Which is exactly the reason "ls" is working perfectly fine for you today. The original AT&T UNIX "ls" has been forked over and over again and rewritten from scratch several times. You're using an evolved fork of this "ls" if you're using macOS or BSD, but if you're on Linux you're using a rewrite (GNU coreutils ls), and if you're running BusyBox you're using yet another rewrite. All of these different rewrites and forks aren't really compatible, and you can't reliably use anything beyond what's in the POSIX standard if you want your scripts to run on multiple OSes. I'm not dissing "ls" - it's an impressive, if old, piece of software that served us well, but it's not inherently more survivable because it's old. It died (in terms of being "forked by another maintainer") many times over, enough to make exa and eza blush. ls survied because people need it, and I that most of the highly popular rewrite-in-Rust programs are here to stay for the same reasons. Ripgrep, exa, bat and fd are probably part of the club now. "ls" is probably not going to die either. The POSIX standard is going to keep at least the least common denominator version alive for a long time. But for many people it could go the way that "ed" or "more" have gone. And here is a good story: "ed" still survived in POSIX as-is, while "vi" died and had to be replaced by stevie and and elvis, and then by vim. Nowadays vim is also been replaced by neovim in many circles. And yet, how many people keep using "ed"? Who cares if it's stable, when vi and its descendants run circles around it?

dahfizz 3y ago
I am not anti-rewrite or anti-port. There exist good reasons to rewrite software. However, being "modern" is not a good reason. The gnu authors were not motivated to write the coreutils simply for the sake of modernity. And that is why their fork of ls has much greater staying power than all the "modern" forks.
- koromak 3y ago
  Sometimes its just for fun. I wouldn't install use exa on my CICD pipelines, but on my own machine? Sure. I like the pretty colors. If it breaks moving back to ls is fine.
- burntsushi 3y ago

qalmakka 3y ago

I use `exa` (and now `eza`) because it provides a better experience than GNU `ls`, IMHO. Sure, I don't _need_ it, but it's nice. I don't see any downside, especially since I've aliased it to `ls` since time immemorial and thus I only need to re-alias eza to ls again.

59nadir 3y ago
> I use `exa` (and now `eza`) because it provides a better than GNU `ls`, IMHO. A better what?
- qalmakka 3y ago
  You got me before I corrected my comment :)

benrutter 3y ago

I've seen this take a lot in the thread but I don't really get it. Exa is a drop in ls replacement- if it breaks (which it hasn't), go back to using ls? As long as there's a reliable built in, I'm pretty happy having the possibility of needing to switch it out for some added convenience.

59nadir 3y ago
It's not a drop-in replacement. `lsd` is, as far as I can see.