/bin/ls vs .dotted files
crossd at gmail.com
Sat Sep 15 08:09:48 PDT 2012
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Matthew Dillon
<dillon at apollo.backplane.com> wrote:
> I'm less interested in what people thought was correct 30 years
> ago, or even 10 years ago, and more interested in what makes the
> most sense today. The reality is that if someone is just doing a
> basic 'ls' ungarnished with options they probably aren't interested in
> dot files. It's a convenience that wasn't imagined 30 years ago
> because one didn't have ten thousand applications installed 30 years
> It looks like older versions of linux had the root/-A behavior, but
> newer versions do not. At least for gnu ls. In fact, considering how
> much 'ls' has forked over the years, I don't think a historical view
> is particularly helpful any more.
> I'm leaning towards making root and non-root behavior the same for ls,
> meaning not turning -A on for root by default. Insofar as I can tell,
> that is where the larger community has been heading over the years.
> Even in FreeBSD where -A is still turned on for root, there were clearly
> enough people who wanted to turn the blasted thing off that they added
> a -I option.
If you are going to make a change, I suggest adding a '-I' and making
the default -A for *all* users. Perhaps if people saw how much the
applications they install are littering their directory namespaces,
pressure would build to come up with a more sensible convention to
handle configuration. Having an arbitrary class of files that are not
displayed by default is non-intuitive and just weird.
- Dan C.
More information about the Users