ls follies

[Alexis Dimitriadis]

> 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! /