Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 21:00:47 -0400 From: Bill Fumerola <billf@chc-chimes.com> To: Doug Barton <Doug@gorean.org> Cc: Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org>, Tim Vanderhoek <vanderh@ecf.utoronto.ca>, freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bin/18900: patch to add colorizing feature to /bin/ls Message-ID: <20000530210047.W86725@jade.chc-chimes.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0005301727010.22524-100000@dt051n0b.san.rr.com>; from Doug@gorean.org on Tue, May 30, 2000 at 05:46:34PM -0700 References: <200005310001.BAA28109@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0005301727010.22524-100000@dt051n0b.san.rr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, May 30, 2000 at 05:46:34PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > I don't see anyone asking for 'ls' to wash their breakfast dishes > for them. The facts remain: > > 1. People _do_ want this. It gets asked often on -questions. > 2. The code is already written. > 3. It adds almost no bloat. > 4. It's totally, completely optional. Exactly. > So, other than on "purist" grounds, are there any other > objections? I don't think there can be anything else besides purist objections... -- Bill Fumerola - Network Architect / Computer Horizons Corp - CVM e-mail: billf@chc-chimes.com / billf@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000530210047.W86725>