From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [45.79.103.53]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id a42bbd8f for ; Sun, 28 Apr 2019 11:48:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id EE66A93D2F; Sun, 28 Apr 2019 21:48:36 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DC7F93D2A; Sun, 28 Apr 2019 21:48:16 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="MKSHHaI3"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id A501693D2A; Sun, 28 Apr 2019 21:48:13 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-qt1-f170.google.com (mail-qt1-f170.google.com [209.85.160.170]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04BB993D27 for ; Sun, 28 Apr 2019 21:48:12 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-qt1-f170.google.com with SMTP id y49so3320572qta.7 for ; Sun, 28 Apr 2019 04:48:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=hm0lCfThSbW4eiCNV4oIiCj16CHahpg6CjzXc6QP7QM=; b=MKSHHaI34G7cCs3ogpUldYBFcOvMSCDOdZ/xO7/CE/XceddF4t7aqRI49SbwMf1k2M YjTJTRsiT3u/7fYrtKHa657SkWyZq4mg7cPDHMdJmsjYhBjRUf5y6KwaBP+Kl/K0v9Dj iUC/7KUOQKmMAKmzsJvWt5/fP+hxjjuyMYJSkshV+PBiQaOELbkvY87wCKQUKAQagdKa fNjZRsMKzGbmrMV/KdJIbxh4gJkvkvULpfDImWmjKz0ZQRwtKlHM6Wwls332I79YdnPD O7UUMsKEFBZ/ZoD1JGdxzCt1JPWck74TvKvxuP+oPRPbyGTD8bxCBcDbE+z0/zN2DUOe HEIA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=hm0lCfThSbW4eiCNV4oIiCj16CHahpg6CjzXc6QP7QM=; b=U6u8MDhKmTmqrRPo4mDwvu1PQhgHwXFqvGIrsJL4hulnGmXGyNJxRqBbGpDXJbSqxt EQ6uxLCqTHreu8Ks1m6NYx4SFla6sp2M7duMIbI2C08T/nrEMJZbtoOrcGHGbIXHcKKs i4RR/ImcKoKPobFjvQlwL9pV9LkxZ6jFwald4vzesgjEeQsomA7q2Vsi7S3AMnAgK1z2 qL7VLIDHJf4HalOJXQF/R89d/NDxrFHbWoyktnCZJZzGOU5cLObFKFn8+TeFJymqSztz 8w2k/MAyuayJc4xQdrMyRiXF8dRqNyXoerNt+iiK3JPQJ+/VdIZWKbKOntTNmbwNJ+q1 lgcQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVcw3aY5/+Q+UOk1ymFUUnSo7YV3fhyTqPU3xQD7Z/b3B5jKsyb eEYc2RzAemG42ZrB2TipF/MOrhVbBoKMLLkb2fsx2w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyHNmD3U09x5oXlIHBfapvpVXtbz9FurvniznmmWOa2wmE7NTu64Pt0VEyw0eHk8gHWFUhh04gMkhLWfL3512o= X-Received: by 2002:a0c:88fd:: with SMTP id 58mr3415132qvo.52.1556452091141; Sun, 28 Apr 2019 04:48:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190427141655.GA8310@alice> In-Reply-To: <20190427141655.GA8310@alice> From: Dan Cross Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2019 07:47:35 -0400 Message-ID: To: Anthony Martin Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000000a0cf058795be79" Subject: Re: [TUHS] A question about ls(1) X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --00000000000000a0cf058795be79 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 10:26 AM Anthony Martin wrote: > From at least V2 to V6, the ls(1) command would not > show directory entries whose names began with a '.' > unless the -a flag was supplied. > > This was changed in V7: only the directory entries > for "." and ".." would be skipped by default. > > All further versions of Research Unix retain the > convention of V7 and Plan 9 ultimately made it > unnecessary. However, BSD and its descendants did > not follow suit. Instead, they continued behaving > like V6 with an additional -A flag to emulate V7. > > Was the initial behavior intentional or just a > matter of expediency? > I believe it's been publicly stated that it was a mistake in early Unix. Apparently, Rob Pike had a Google+ post to this effect back in 2012 (or earlier): I see a reference to it from another mailing list around that time. Unfortunately, the Google+ content is now lost. Rob, do you have a copy? Who made the change and what was their motivation? > Was it a reaction to the intentional hiding of what > came to be known as "dot files"? Speaking from memory, I think the intent was to avoid showing '.' and '..', and that a programming error accidentally hid all dotfiles; probably this went unnoticed because there just weren't many of them at the time. This was corrected in 7th Edition, but the existing behavior had already escaped into the world via Berkeley. I suspect the "dot file" convention came later, as a side-effect of observed behavior of ls. - Dan C. --00000000000000a0cf058795be79 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 10:26 AM Anthony = Martin <ality@pbrane.org> wro= te:
From at least V2 to V6, the ls(1) command would not
show directory entries whose names began with a '.'
unless the -a flag was supplied.

This was changed in V7: only the directory entries
for "." and ".." would be skipped by default.

All further versions of Research Unix retain the
convention of V7 and Plan 9 ultimately made it
unnecessary. However, BSD and its descendants did
not follow suit. Instead, they continued behaving
like V6 with an additional -A flag to emulate V7.

Was the initial behavior intentional or just a
matter of expediency?

I believe it'= s been publicly stated that it was a mistake in early Unix. Apparently, Rob= Pike had a Google+ post to this effect back in 2012 (or earlier): I see a = reference to it from another mailing list around that time. Unfortunately, = the Google+ content is now lost. Rob, do you have a copy?

Who made the change and what was their motivation?
Was it a reaction to the intentional hiding of what
came to be known as "dot files"?

= Speaking from memory, I think the intent was to avoid showing '.' a= nd '..', and that a programming error accidentally hid all dotfiles= ; probably this went unnoticed because there just weren't many of them = at the time. This was corrected in 7th Edition, but the existing behavior h= ad already escaped into the world via Berkeley.

I = suspect the "dot file" convention came later, as a side-effect of= observed behavior of ls.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 - Dan C.

--00000000000000a0cf058795be79--