Re: [dev] [sbase] [patch] Optimize 'ls' and add '-U'

From: Calvin Morrison <>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 18:31:16 -0400

On 22 July 2013 18:18, Chris Down <> wrote:
> On 22 July 2013 23:44, Calvin Morrison <> wrote:
>> Why? Why is it ridiculous to want to be able to support medium sized
>> file directories, for example thousands of frames of a video, DNA
>> sequencing files and others I often have are in large sets of files,
>> and don't have any sub division that is logical other than numerically
>> creating subdirectories.
>> I think your thinking is wrong. In 2013, why can't we support a
>> directory that responds reasonably fast with a large amount of
>> directories?
> If you want to make the "it's 2013" argument, then you should also
> bear in mind that on any modern hardware it already does respond
> within the boundaries of being "reasonably fast". This is a niche
> requirement. Please keep it out of any non-specialised utility groups.

So following the whole "GNU is bloated with arguments and options idea
someone mentioned":

Okay so then should we remove the sort option from ls altogether? It
isn't very suckless, and can be easily achieved with ls | sort
Received on Tue Jul 23 2013 - 00:31:16 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Jul 23 2013 - 00:36:05 CEST