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

[Kamil Dudka]

On Monday, February 5, 2018 8:27:58 PM CET Bernhard Voelker wrote:
> On 02/05/2018 07:45 PM, Kaz Kylheku (Coreutils) wrote:
>  > There is no need for this pointless garbage. Unix has gotten along
>  > without quoting the output of ls for 43 years now.
> 
> If you search the mailing list archive, then you'll see that
> this has already been discussed (several times).

I do not need to search as I have been following the discussions in real time.  
It is always the same.  GNU coreutils authors explain why changing the default 
was a good idea whereas all other users explain why the change was unexpected 
at best and desperately ask for revert.

> 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'

The question is *not* which quoting style is better default.  The question is 
whether GNU coreutils users appreciate the *change* of the well-known default.

> You see, you can still use
>    alias ls='\ls -N'
> to get the old, IMO broken output.

... or export QUOTING_STYLE=literal.  Nevertheless, if you ever consider all 
the feedback you have been given from users (except GNU coreutils authors),
you must see that the current default is just not well accepted.

I think it would be better to revert the default now and let the users who 
need to quote the output to enable it explicitly.  In the end, it is as easy 
as creating an alias or exporting a shell variable, isn't it?

Kamil

> > Programs which parse the output of "ls" are broken.
> 
> It is not about parsing, but rather about easier copy+paste in a terminal.
> If the output is not a terminal, then ls(1) still falls back to the old
> mode:
> 
>    $ /bin/ls | cat
>    a b
>    c
>     d
> 
> Have a nice day,
> Berny