Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.misc:2524 comp.os.linux.misc:16305 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msuinfo!agate!doc.ic.ac.uk!uknet!EU.net!uunet!utcsri!turing.toronto.edu!ruhtra Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc From: ruhtra@turing.toronto.edu (Arthur Tateishi) Subject: Re: Linux vs *BSD (new twist) Message-ID: <1994Jun5.152002.22965@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto References: <2sl6o3$pvs@aurora.engr.latech.edu> <2smc4m$daj@Mercury.mcs.com> <WAYNE.94Jun3224657@backbone.uucp> <2spm91$1b2@starbase.neosoft.com> Date: 5 Jun 94 19:20:02 GMT Lines: 19 In article <2spm91$1b2@starbase.neosoft.com>, Peter da Silva <peter@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> wrote: >In article <WAYNE.94Jun3224657@backbone.uucp>, >Wayne Schlitt <wayne@cse.unl.edu> wrote: >>The 'ls --color' is just an 1980's update to the 70's 'ls -F'... >>Personally, I don't like either, but I have no problems with having >>both as an option... > >The difference is that "ls -F" doesn't mean "ls" has to suck in termlib. >Sometimes extra features are a bad idea, when they lead to code bloat. So That's only the beginning. It also tries to read /etc/DIR_COLORS to look for configuration options! When I install Linux, ls is the first thing I "fix". arthur -- Choices don't scare me. However, a lack of choices does. Arthur Tateishi ruhtra@turing.utoronto.ca