|
|
|
|
|
by queuebert
1022 days ago
|
|
The 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. |
|
(it probably helps that I use a filesystem - btrfs - that is fundamentally append-based so gives a meaningful order even with -U)