From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mparson@bl.org (Michael Parson) Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 15:18:27 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [TUHS] Were all of you.. Hippies? In-Reply-To: <20170321202839.GG21805@naleco.com> References: <20170320214858.TIJoR%steffen@sdaoden.eu> <009301d2a1c9$cb604c70$6220e550$@ronnatalie.com> <20170321202839.GG21805@naleco.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 21 Mar 2017, Josh Good wrote: > Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 21:28:40 +0100 > From: Josh Good > To: tuhs at minnie.tuhs.org > Subject: Re: [TUHS] Were all of you.. Hippies? > > On 2017 Mar 20, 23:05, ron minnich wrote: >> At the time I got into Unix in 1976, E. F. Schumacher's "Small is >> Beautiful" book was fairly popular > >> (...) Those days are long gone of course; I noticed the other day that >> on Linux there are 16 commands that start with ls, that do roughly >> the same function, and nobody seems to think this is a bad thing. The >> only place the original 'small is beautiful' Unix ideas continue on >> that I know of is Plan 9. > > In RedHat Enterprise Linux 5.11 (without X-Window) I get: > > $ ls > ls lsattr lsb_release lshal lspgpot > > Whereas in Ubuntu 14.04 (full desktop install) I get: > > $ ls > ls lsblk lscpu lsdvd lsinitramfs lsof lspcmcia lss16toppm > lsattr lsb_release lsdiff lshw lsmod lspci lspgpot lsusb > > But then, in UnixWare 2.1 I get: > > $ bash > bash-2.01$ ls > (...no output...) > > So yeah, it's getting more bloated by the day. > > Anyone can contribute how is it on a recent OpenBSD without X-Window? How about NetBSD 6.1.4: $ ls ls lsb lsextattr lsof lspci lsx lsz Though only 'ls' and 'lsextattr' are part of the base install, the others are owned by various things installed out of pkgsrc, ls[bxz] are all from the same package. -- Michael Parson Pflugerville, TX KF5LGQ