4 ms·
Except it doesn't work fine, its poor design is one of the reasons for the modern replacements
by eviks 3y ago
Except it doesn't work fine, its poor design is one of the reasons for the modern replacements
- baz00 3y agoI can't say I've found anything particularly wrong with it in the last 40 years.
- queuebert 3y agoThe only problem I ever have with 'ls' is accidentally listing very large directories, but that is almost always an OS and filesystem issue at the core. If an ls replacement could somehow handle directories with >10^4 files faster, then I'd switch.
- o11c 3y agoHave you tried: alias ls='ls -U' ? I find my ^C usually makes it through if I need it. Sometimes minimizing the terminal or switching desktops also helps. (it probably helps that I use a filesystem - btrfs - that is fundamentally append-based so gives a meaningful order even with -U)
- queuebert 3y agoI have not -- thanks for the tip. Having to ^C out of an ls is sub-optimal, to say the least.
- JeremyNT 3y agoI've never had a problem with ls. What about it doesn't "work fine?" I could imagine another utility having a different feature set that people find useful, but in my experience gnu ls always does what it claims to do, and is so foundational that it's a de facto standard when working with Linux. The desire to "replace" such well established utilities seems misguided to me - by all means add on additional utilities that help you out, but I think it would be wise accept the fact that due to its long history "ls" and similar tools are not going to be replaced any time soon.
- monsieurbanana 3y agoI'm annoyed that ls is not the same depending on the OS
- gilcot 3y agoPOSIX options and behaviours are the same, not extra stuffs.
- eviks 3y agoAnd I could immediately see issues with its design, from cross-platform support to ease of configuration. It's not wise to accept broken tools just because they persist, that's just mindless conservatism