Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site reed.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!decwrl!decvax!tektronix!reed!alexis From: alexis@reed.UUCP (Alexis Dimitriadis) Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards Subject: Re: ls follies Message-ID: <1803@reed.UUCP> Date: Fri, 16-Aug-85 05:03:35 EDT Article-I.D.: reed.1803 Posted: Fri Aug 16 05:03:35 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 20-Aug-85 03:37:03 EDT References: <3123@nsc.UUCP> Reply-To: alexis@reed.UUCP (Alexis Dimitriadis) Organization: Reed College, Portland, Oregon Lines: 33 > 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! /