Subject: Re: stat(1)
To: Andrew Brown <email@example.com>
From: Steven M. Bellovin <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 12/29/2001 08:57:42
In message <20011229004505.A19257@noc.untraceable.net>, Andrew Brown writes:
>> | Mine only puts out the times -- inode and size are easy enough to get
>> | from ls, as are owner and group. To me, the important thing is a
>> | format that's easily parseable by scripts.
>>Exactly. No-one really needs an even more verbose "ls" output. Though
>>parsing ls output is never really what one ought to be doing, it is too
>>likely to undergo random changes to make it "look better".
>what if...what if someone were to use up another option letter for ls
>and allow the user to specify a "format" (sort in the same way that
>date and ps allow user specified formatting)? hmm...-O looks unused. :)
I think that that leads us down a very dangerous path. Well, actually,
it leads us further down a path that we're already on.
Right now, we have (at least) date and ps that (in effect) apply
user-defined formatting instructions to a structure dump. You propose
to add another. Maybe what we really need is raw structure dumps, plus
a generalized (controlled by /etc/struct?) translator into the
individual fields, plus a prettyprinter.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb
Full text of "Firewalls" book now at http://www.wilyhacker.com