|
|
|
|
|
|
by cmrdporcupine
1022 days ago
|
|
|
Tell me that you don't/haven't worked across a variety of Unix*en without telling me that you haven't... Back in the day it was navigating all the crap between SunOS vs SysV, HPUX, AIX, BSD, etc and then later Solaris, Linux, etc Now it's OS X vs Linux coreutils vs busybox etc. They all have subtle different interfaces and while there is a common basis the reality is that 'ls' is a strange hill to die on for the point you're trying to make. Like 'ps', it's something people have messed with the flags and output a bunch of times... As others have pointed out, there is no single `ls`, and it's been "replaced" in various systems many times. Yes, we have a contiguous usage of the GNU version for some time, but only really in Linux. Homogeneity has never been the name of the game in Unix culture, I don't understand why people would insist on it now. I say: Bring on the "modern alternatives". I just installed lsd. I used to keep a shell alias from lsd -> ls for years anyways :-) |
|
|
I spent a good deal of time working on SunOS (right back to m68k stuff), Solaris, HP/UX, Linux and FreeBSD over the years and use macOS now and am more than aware of the inconsistencies.
My point is that we pretty much standardised on some basic semantics around each command and what is portable and what is not. And now we're considering moving away from those learnings back to the wild west again.
I consider GNU to be a particularly bad variety of the wild west here for reference. I'm old enough to have been fucked by the differences between gawk and awk.