Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


Click here to return to the 'Use lsmac to get Mac file information in the Terminal' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Use lsmac to get Mac file information in the Terminal
Authored by: bluestar on Apr 09, '03 11:50:20AM

Why a separate tool? Why not patch the GNU ls with fork, type and Finder support?

The -M option is still available.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Re: ls patch
Authored by: bmerlin on Apr 09, '03 02:10:56PM

Maybe because the author didn't want to.

Why don't you?



[ Reply to This | # ]
Use lsmac to get Mac file information in the Terminal
Authored by: carsten on Apr 09, '03 06:18:02PM

Unfortunately it is not a trivial task to simply patch GNU's "ls" source code to add type/creator codes and resource forks, but hopefully sometime in the future it will be possible. :)

Anyone with sufficient programming experience should probably e-mail the author directly if he/she can help with this endeavour, IMHO it would be *very* nice for the Mac platform to have GNU "ls" compile with such type/creator/rsrc features "out-of-the-box!"

Carsten



[ Reply to This | # ]
great idea!
Authored by: sgi_oh_too on Apr 09, '03 11:30:29PM

even though it is "hard" to patch gnu ls ... it should have been done that way ... creating single purpose apps that have features that should be included in existing projects is what makes open source so ridiculous these days. Have you ever looked on freshmeat at the number of text editors out there? 400+ ... there is absolutely no reason for that. These features should be rolled into gnu ls ... and that is that. Perhaps ill do just that later this week and post it up here.



[ Reply to This | # ]
it *should* have been done that way
Authored by: semios on Apr 10, '03 02:38:59PM

I guess you would also claim that there are far too many books on philosophy in the library? There is absolutely no reason for all those books.



[ Reply to This | # ]
it *should* have been done that way
Authored by: sgi_oh_too on Apr 11, '03 12:27:53AM
good response ... although, software development is an entirely different thing

there isn't much gain in having a single book that covers all the bases over a group of books that covers all the bases ... but having a single application that covers all the bases is essential because it contributes to overall productivity, ability, and ease of use

imagine having one web browser that displays the text and jpgs of a web page ... and another web browser that displays the text and gifs of a web page

or even worse ... having one powerful app to list the files and attributes in a directory, and another that offers different attributes but is much less powerful ... thus forcing every listing of a directory to be %ls followed by %lsmac ... this is not simple, elegant, nor intuitive

having multiple (overlapping and/or redundant) books is simply not comparable since the purpose of philosophy books is to explain concepts/ideas/rationale rather than rotely format and organize information in a "simple" and "quick" manner

[ Reply to This | # ]