https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roll_Safe XD
Le mer. 7 oct. 2026 à 17:37, Pádraig Brady <[email protected]> a écrit : > > On 07/10/2026 15:16, Anonymousemail via GNU coreutils General Discussion > wrote: > > Powered by Anonymousemail > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > I'm writing about something that might sound trivial, but I think it > > deserves a moment of reflection. > > > > I'm talking about ls. Yes, the command all of us run hundreds of times a > > day. My frustration comes from the fact that ls, in its standard form, has > > no simple option to filter files by execute permission. To get a list of > > just the executable files, the user is forced to reach for find — a > > powerful tool, sure, but much more verbose and, in some contexts, far less > > immediate. > > > > So here's my question: is it really acceptable that in 2026, for such an > > elementary need, we still have to go through find, or worse, through > > fragile and non-portable parsing of ls -l output? Wouldn't it make more > > sense to add an option like --executable (or something similar) to ls, to > > filter results by the x bit? > > > > I'm well aware that ls is a POSIX command, that its syntax has been > > standardized for decades, and that the Unix philosophy is "one tool, one > > job". But I have to ask: isn't that philosophy, in this specific case, > > becoming an excuse for not adding a feature that would improve the > > ergonomics of one of the most-used tools in existence? > > > > One more thing, just to add insult to injury: find itself isn't even > > consistent across platforms. On macOS (BSD), -executable doesn't exist and > > the permission syntax differs from Linux (GNU). So anyone working on both > > systems has to remember two different syntaxes to do the same thing. An > > option in ls would solve that portability problem too. > > > > I know this email will probably go nowhere, or that I'll get told "just use > > find and stop whining". But I wanted to put my two cents in. If anyone > > feels like discussing it, I'm here. > > This was discussed previously: > https://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/rejected_requests.html#ls > > The summary from there was something like this was sufficient: > > lx() { ls --color -lF | sed -n 's#\*$##p'; } > cheers, > Padraig >
