instability in Berkeley versus AT&T releases (absurdly long)

[J. Shapiro]

> > The only thing terrible about ls -C is that it ought to be the default for
> > CRTs. USG ls _requires_ the "-C" to get the multiple columns, which _is_
> > brain damaged.
> 
> I would sure get upset if when I ran "ls" in the long skinny window
> on my DMD, it didn't print the file names one per line.  You are
> making the same mistake that a lot of the more crufty BSD software
> has made, namely:  assuming an overly-restrictive model of how the
> software is to be used.

I was waiting for someone to say that. I knew the net could be relied on for
a straight line. Consider that generating multiple columns requires a know-
ledge of terminal width, and that I did not insist that "ls" be stupid. I
If my window is wide enough for two columns, that is how I want my display.

There is a difference between being "crufty" and paying attention to detail
and niceities that make life easier on a user. Whether -C should be the
option or -1 should be the option should not be determined by your or my
blathering.  It should be determined by what the bulk of the users
want, modified by what is feasible, reasonable, and sensible.

Part of the pleasure of dealing with UNIX, to me, is the fact that
utility programs don't insist on being unduly stupid.  As to my model
being overly restrictive, that is simply untrue, as I hope is now
clear.  Utilities ought to behave reasonably, and this in no way
detracts from the robustness of my model - she's terrific;-)

Jon Shapiro
Haverford COllege