Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.bhp.com.au!mel.dit.csiro.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!news.ysu.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!gatech!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.artisoft.com!not-for-mail
From: mday@elbereth.org (Matt Day)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Is replacing /bin/sh with bash recommended?
Date: 15 Apr 1996 14:21:50 -0700
Organization: Xln xwvtb yunhwbn ju ljq qyue cjub eudryke "Ethereal"?
Lines: 67
Message-ID: <4kuele$m27@coyote.Artisoft.COM>
References: <4jeim7$cde@park.uvsc.edu> <4jgj3f$lal@coyote.artisoft.com> <4ko55o$1qg@knobel.gun.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: coyote.artisoft.com
In article <4ko55o$1qg@knobel.gun.de> andreas@knobel.gun.de (Andreas Klemm) writes:
>In article <4jgj3f$lal@coyote.artisoft.com>,
> mday@elbereth.org (Matt Day) writes:
>>I have found the colorized ls extremely useful for answering questions
>>like "which files are executables in this directory?",
>
>But what, if the user reconfigured it to use another color ;-)))
>"Delete the blue ones" :->>
And your point is...?
>>"are there any
>>subdirectories in this directory?",
>
>simply type du, then you see all directories recursive...
I didn't say colorized ls is the only way to answer that question, I
just said it was a fast, easy way to answer it, for me.
>>etc. I think that most people will
>>agree that it is easier to tell if the output of ls contained any green
>>text than if the output contained any files with a "*" following them
>>(ala ls -F). If you use neither ls -F nor the colorized ls, you're
>>forced to rely on your memory of the file modes to answer those
>>questions, which I suspect would be much slower and much more prone to
>>error, especially if you've never been in the directory before.
>
>Ahem ... an executable file has an x, a directory a d ... it's a really
>complicate world, isnt it ?! Really complicated is Win95... So you
>additionally have to remember icons ;-))
I don't see why you care whether or not I identify my executables by
the 'x', or by the '*', or by a color. What's it to you? And in my
opinion, color involves no more complexity than the other choices.
>>I don't know why the color is so distracting for you, but I guess
>>everybody is different. The color doesn't slow down my brain's ability
>>to search the sorted output for a specific file.
>
>Some colors don't make a good contrast on the screen, it makes my eyes
>tired ... blue on black is to few contrast, red on black bites... and
>so on ... But as I said. Make a port or use a port and now please
>finish the worthless affort to turn "us" to colored oerating mode ;-))
Yes, I know colors aren't for everyone. They especially aren't useful
on all types of monitors. But I think you understood my meaning. I
never said "everybody should use colorized ls". I just said "I have
found colorized ls useful", in response to some posts where people were
implying that it is a useless newbie feature.
>>I highly recommend the colorized ls. I think most people's brains are
>>capable of using the color to speed up processing of the ls output. It
>>is definitely not a useless, silly feature reserved for Unix newbies.
>
>As a rule of thumb: In a republican boat you don't vote for
>democrates ;-))
Please read what I said again. "I highly recommend the colorized ls."
Do I sound like I'm trying to vote for a One True Operating Mode of ls?
I think tcsh is the best interactive shell for me, but I don't care at
all if other people like ksh.
Matt Day <mday@elbereth.org>
PS: For a democracy to work correctly and usefully, citizens must vote
for who they want to win, not for who they think everybody else (in
the boat) is voting for.