4 ms·
Especially the features we don't consider. Try replacing your "ls" command with the one found in the original Unix, sure it's 90% smaller, or more, but I guaran
by mrweasel 3y ago
Especially the features we don't consider. Try replacing your "ls" command with the one found in the original Unix, sure it's 90% smaller, or more, but I guarantee that it doesn't do colors.
- Cthulhu_ 3y agoIs that an example of the 80/20 rule... with some creativity? 80% of code being for the 80% of the functionality that aren't strictly necessary ;).
- adwn 3y ago"Strictly necessary" is too strict a criterion. For me, ls without colors to distinguish between files and directories sucks ass, as would an ls which doesn't sort by name (also not "strictly necessary").
- benj111 3y agoLs -l tells you whether it's a directory. (-l flag available in the first edition) If you want colours you can pipe it through a sed script. If you want to sort it in some way you could pipe it to sort or something. No system is ever going to do everything everyone wants. The Unix solution is to allow you to easily add the things you do want.
- hardware2win 3y agoIt reminds me of that dropbox rsync meme...
- mrweasel 3y ago> The Unix solution is to allow you to easily add the things you do want. And yet here we are, with ls having builtin support for color, sorting and more.