Re: ls is broken, what's next cd?

[Michael Felt]

On 05-Feb-18 20:27, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
> IMO the main reason that the current implementation is the right
> direction is that file names became more and more "ugly" in the past
> 43 years.  Compare this quite easy cases:
>
>   $ /bin/ls -N
>   a b  c    d
>
>   $ /bin/ls
>   'a b'  'c '  ' d' 
imho, the main problem is you change the default behavior, and 43 years 
of programs are broken.

but then, gnu would not be "gnu not unix" if it doesn't break at least 
one unix standard per year.

gnu and fsf have done great good, but change for the sake of change, or 
because you can, is just a form of anarchy (or whatever, never very good 
in politics or social skills).

good luck to all! sounds like we will have a reason to keep our jobs!

aka, it's a feature, not a bug.