[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#22696: ls output changes considered unacceptable
From: |
Ruediger Meier |
Subject: |
bug#22696: ls output changes considered unacceptable |
Date: |
Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:13:25 +0100 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.9.10 |
On Tuesday 16 February 2016, Jon Stanley wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Ruediger Meier <address@hidden>
wrote:
> > No! IMO Newbies should learn (most painful as possible!) that
> > non-ascii filenames sucks. :) Maybe ls shouldn't show them at all
> > by default ;)
>
> I normally lurk on this list, but this leads me to *vehemently*
> disagree. This is a top FAQ amongst new users, and I think that we
> (as an open source community, I don't personally have a single commit
> in coreutils) have a responsibility to make our ecosystem welcoming
> and accessible to new users. This change, IMO, does exactly that, and
> will save countless hours of supporting new users through the
> intricate mechanisms of shell escapes and why they are necessary.
> Quite obvious to you and I, not so much to new users. Anything that
> we can do to ease their learning curve (ideally, while teaching them
> something) is IMO a positive step.
Do you really think that this ls output is clear to a newbie?
$ ls
'a?b' 'a'$'\n''b' axb c 'd e'
allthough in dolphin shows up like:
1 2 3 4 5
a?b a axb c d e
b
Do you really think that a newbie will know between which quotes and
spaces to copy/paste the right file name?
And why do we only care about newbies? Other people have used these
commands for +20 years. To not bother the "power users" is IMO much
more important.
I've choosed to use the command line because it's more reliable, stable
interfaces, appearance and output. That's why I (and many others)
choosed these command line tools rather than file-browers which look
completely different between any release or are not even availabe on
different systems.
It doesn't matter if you like the new format or not. This quick change
of the default to an even untested new (never released before!) format
was clearly over the top. Please revert.
cu,
Rudi
- bug#22698: ls output changes considered unacceptable, Jason A. Donenfeld, 2016/02/16
- bug#22696: ls output changes considered unacceptable, Bernhard Voelker, 2016/02/16
- bug#22696: ls output changes considered unacceptable, Bernhard Voelker, 2016/02/16
- bug#22696: ls output changes considered unacceptable, Ruediger Meier, 2016/02/16
- bug#22696: ls output changes considered unacceptable, Paul Eggert, 2016/02/16
- bug#22696: ls output changes considered unacceptable, Ruediger Meier, 2016/02/16
- bug#22696: ls output changes considered unacceptable, Paul Eggert, 2016/02/16
- bug#22696: ls output changes considered unacceptable, Ruediger Meier, 2016/02/16
- bug#22696: ls output changes considered unacceptable, Pádraig Brady, 2016/02/17
- bug#22696: ls output changes considered unacceptable, Jon Stanley, 2016/02/16
- bug#22696: ls output changes considered unacceptable,
Ruediger Meier <=
- bug#22696: ls output changes considered unacceptable, Assaf Gordon, 2016/02/16
- bug#22696: ls output changes considered unacceptable, Paul Eggert, 2016/02/16
- bug#22696: ls output changes considered unacceptable, Ruediger Meier, 2016/02/16
- bug#22696: ls output changes considered unacceptable, isabella parakiss, 2016/02/16
- bug#22696: ls output changes considered unacceptable, Mike Frysinger, 2016/02/16
- bug#22696: ls output changes considered unacceptable, isabella parakiss, 2016/02/17
- bug#22696: ls output changes considered unacceptable, Eric Blake, 2016/02/16
- bug#22696: ls output changes considered unacceptable, Ruediger Meier, 2016/02/16
- bug#22696: ls output changes considered unacceptable, Eric Blake, 2016/02/16
bug#22696: ls output changes considered unacceptable, Mike Hodson, 2016/02/17