rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) (08/02/85)
In article <1227@sjuvax.UUCP> jss@sjuvax.UUCP (J. Shapiro) writes: > >The only thing terrible about ls -C is that it ought to be the default for >CRTs. USG ls _requires_ the "-C" to get the multiple columns, which _is_ >brain damaged. The only thing terrible about 'ls -C' is that 'ls -CF' ought to be the default for CRTs. Your option (ls -C as default) would _require_ the "-F" to get the directory/executable_file markings, which _is_ brain damaged. In short, everyone likes something different; therefore the word 'option' is quite often used in Unix documentation. If you don't like it, get a reasonable shell so you can alias 'l' to be 'ls -CF', 'ls -C', or whatever you like. Remember, folks, this is "Unix", tm, registered, summa cum laude, etc.; remember the flexibility that stands for? Remember the amazement of the IBM JCL jockey when he bitched about the Unix 'cat' command and you shrugged and said, "Write your own and call it cat."? Unix is what you make it (thank God, Kernighan, Thompson, et. al.), -- The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj
peter@kitty.UUCP (Peter DaSilva) (08/06/85)
> is quite often used in Unix documentation. If you don't like it, get > a reasonable shell so you can alias 'l' to be 'ls -CF', 'ls -C', or > whatever you like. OK. The ls we have here, ported from 4.2, munged by tek, has the following links: l ls -m ls ls -C lf ls -CF ll ls -l Not everyone can get a reasonable shell. You want to mail me a copy of a korn shell binary for a vanilla PDP-11 V7 system? Or CSH? Or even the source? I don't have a UNIX source license. Or a reconfiguration license. or a SV license. Then I'll give you your point.
alexis@reed.UUCP (Alexis Dimitriadis) (08/16/85)
> Do you realize that for all the billions and billions of options hacked > into ls, I've never seen a version of ls that can sort files based on size? > shoe size of the programmer maybe, but never file size.... > What gets me is there is no way to convince ls to produce _unsorted_ output! (never mind why... ok, I needed output in the order of the arguments). > chuq (no, DON'T do it! please! We don't NEED another option....) There is certainly too much functionality for one program in ls, but as it was pointed out, it's either impractical or inefficient to delegate much of it to filters. Maybe the world needs a multitude (well, at least two) of distinct directory-listing programs, for different uses! `ls -CF' is certainly distinct from `ls -algti'. A local directory-listing program (from the pre 4.2 ls days) also has zillions of options, but with a twist: It interprets its name as an option argument, so a link by the name of `lc' means `list in columns', etc. Think which you would rather have: zillions of options, or zillions of programs? Alexis "Cannot find lcsdfra in the manual" Dimitriadis :-) -- _______________________________________________ As soon as I get a full time job, the opinions expressed above will attach themselves to my employer, who will never be rid of them again. alexis @ reed ...teneron! \ ...seismo!ihnp4! - tektronix! - reed.UUCP ...decvax! /
itkin@luke.UUCP (Steven List) (08/18/85)
In article <1803@reed.UUCP> alexis@reed.UUCP (Alexis Dimitriadis) writes: >> Do you realize that for all the billions and billions of options hacked >> into ls, I've never seen a version of ls that can sort files based on size? >> shoe size of the programmer maybe, but never file size.... >> > What gets me is there is no way to convince ls to produce _unsorted_ >output! (never mind why... ok, I needed output in the order of the arguments). Wouldn't find . -type f -print | xargs ls -l... do this for you? Granted, in this simple case it does a recursive listing a la ls -R, but at least it's unsorted! -- *** * Steven List @ Benetics Corporation, Mt. View, CA * Just part of the stock at "Uncle Bene's Farm" * {cdp,greipa,idi,oliveb,sun,tolerant}!bene!luke!itkin ***
fbp@cybvax0.UUCP (Rick Peralta) (08/21/85)
In article <321@luke.UUCP> you write: >> What gets me is there is no way to convince ls to produce _unsorted_ >>output! (never mind why... > How about ls -f. By the way why does -f have to turn off -l and about everything else ? Please followup in net.unix. Rick ...!cybvax0[!dmc0]!fbp "A likely story. I don't believe a word of it."