3 ms·

Why does this require inventing lsr as an alternative to ls instead of making ls use io_uring? It seems pretty annoying to have to install replacements for the

Why does this require inventing lsr as an alternative to ls instead of making ls use io_uring? It seems pretty annoying to have to install replacements for the most basic command line tools. And especially in this case, where you do not even do it for additional features, just for getting the exact same thing done a bit faster.

nailer 1y ago
`ls` is in C, `lsr` is in Zig. The `lsr` programmer probably doesn't want to make new code in C.
- loeg 1y ago
  In addition, the author might not want to sign away their rights to the FSF.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - andrepd 1y ago
    What on earth are you talking about? Why would this be the case?
    - scott_w 1y ago
      Depending on the implementation (and I don't know which `ls` is being referred to), modifying `ls` might mean modifying an FSF project which require copyright assignment as a condition of patch submissions.
      - leni536 1y ago
        That's only the case if the author would want to upstream their changes. If they wanted to only fork ls then they would only be required to comply with the license, without assigning copyright over.
        scott_w 1y ago
        That may be the case but then why bother modifying ls when you can just write your own exactly as you want it?
    - loeg 1y ago
      Are you unfamiliar with contributing to GNU projects (ls is part of GNU corutils)? https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Copyright-Papers https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Copyright-Pa...
mschuster91 1y ago
> Why does this require inventing lsr as an alternative to ls instead of making ls use io_uring? Good luck getting that upstreamed and accepted. The more foundational the tools (and GNU coreutils definitely is foundational), the more difficult that process will be. Releasing a standalone utility makes iteration much faster, partially because one is not bound to the release cycles of distributions.
- s1mplicissimus 1y ago
  > Releasing a standalone utility makes iteration much faster, partially because one is not bound to the release cycles of distributions. which certainly is a valid way or prioritizing. similarly, distros/users may prioritize stability, which means the theoretical improvement would now be stuck in not-used-land. the value of software appears when it's run, not when it's written
  - KPGv2 1y ago
    > the value of software appears when it's run, not when it's written Have you ever tried to contribute to open source projects? The question was why wouldn't someone writing software not take the route likely to end in rejection/failure. I don't know about you, but if I write software, I am not going to write it for a project whose managers will make it difficult for my PR to be accepted, and that 99% likely it never will be. I will always contribute to the project likely to appreciate my work and incorporate it. I'll share an anecdote: I got involved with a project, filed a couple PRs that were accepted (slowly), and then I talked about refactoring something so it could be tested better and wasn't so fragile and tightly coupled to IO. "Sounds great" was the response. So I did the refactor. Filed a PR and asked for code review. The response was (after a long time waiting) "thanks but no, we don't want this." PR closed. No feedback, nothing. I don't even use the software anymore. I certainly haven't tried to fix any bugs. I don't like being jerked around by management, especially when I'm doing it for free. (For the record, I privately forked the code and run my own version that is better because by refactoring and then writing tests, I discovered a number of bugs I couldn't be arsed to file with the original project.)
tiagod 1y ago
You don't have to install it. You can modify ls yourself too.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
kmeisthax 1y ago
[dead]
bicolao 1y ago
The author answered on lobster thread [1]. This is more of an io_uring exercise than an attempt to replace ls. [1] https://lobste.rs/s/mklbl9/lsr_ls_with_io_uring https://lobste.rs/s/mklbl9/lsr_ls_with_io_uring

nailer 1y ago

`ls` is in C, `lsr` is in Zig. The `lsr` programmer probably doesn't want to make new code in C.

loeg 1y ago
In addition, the author might not want to sign away their rights to the FSF.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- andrepd 1y ago
  What on earth are you talking about? Why would this be the case?
  - scott_w 1y ago
    Depending on the implementation (and I don't know which `ls` is being referred to), modifying `ls` might mean modifying an FSF project which require copyright assignment as a condition of patch submissions.
    - leni536 1y ago
      That's only the case if the author would want to upstream their changes. If they wanted to only fork ls then they would only be required to comply with the license, without assigning copyright over.
      - scott_w 1y ago
        That may be the case but then why bother modifying ls when you can just write your own exactly as you want it?
  - loeg 1y ago
    Are you unfamiliar with contributing to GNU projects (ls is part of GNU corutils)? https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Copyright-Papers https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Copyright-Pa...

mschuster91 1y ago

> Why does this require inventing lsr as an alternative to ls instead of making ls use io_uring? Good luck getting that upstreamed and accepted. The more foundational the tools (and GNU coreutils definitely is foundational), the more difficult that process will be. Releasing a standalone utility makes iteration much faster, partially because one is not bound to the release cycles of distributions.

s1mplicissimus 1y ago
> Releasing a standalone utility makes iteration much faster, partially because one is not bound to the release cycles of distributions. which certainly is a valid way or prioritizing. similarly, distros/users may prioritize stability, which means the theoretical improvement would now be stuck in not-used-land. the value of software appears when it's run, not when it's written
- KPGv2 1y ago
  > the value of software appears when it's run, not when it's written Have you ever tried to contribute to open source projects? The question was why wouldn't someone writing software not take the route likely to end in rejection/failure. I don't know about you, but if I write software, I am not going to write it for a project whose managers will make it difficult for my PR to be accepted, and that 99% likely it never will be. I will always contribute to the project likely to appreciate my work and incorporate it. I'll share an anecdote: I got involved with a project, filed a couple PRs that were accepted (slowly), and then I talked about refactoring something so it could be tested better and wasn't so fragile and tightly coupled to IO. "Sounds great" was the response. So I did the refactor. Filed a PR and asked for code review. The response was (after a long time waiting) "thanks but no, we don't want this." PR closed. No feedback, nothing. I don't even use the software anymore. I certainly haven't tried to fix any bugs. I don't like being jerked around by management, especially when I'm doing it for free. (For the record, I privately forked the code and run my own version that is better because by refactoring and then writing tests, I discovered a number of bugs I couldn't be arsed to file with the original project.)

tiagod 1y ago

You don't have to install it. You can modify ls yourself too.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

kmeisthax 1y ago

[dead]

bicolao 1y ago

The author answered on lobster thread [1]. This is more of an io_uring exercise than an attempt to replace ls. [1] https://lobste.rs/s/mklbl9/lsr_ls_with_io_uring https://lobste.rs/s/mklbl9/lsr_ls_with_io_uring