On Sun, 13 Oct 1996, David Bushong wrote:

> Great idea!  About color-ls, though:  I compiled and patched gnu ls to do 
> color and can say from experience: even on a small dir, color lssing is 
> 2-3 times slower than without.. (without being ls -F)  *However*, gnu ls 
> *without* color runs, on large dirs, 2-3 times *faster* than the default 
> netbsd binary distribution.. go figure!  (And, according to 'time', it 
> uses about 1/10 the system resources)

Am I interpreting this correctly to mean that, given a sufficiently large
directory, color-ls from gnu is roughly equivalent in speed to NetBSD ls?

I'm a little curious about the speed difference.  The color-ls changes
shouldn't be that significant, should they?  I mean, all it really does is
check permissions, symilnk vs. normal, and file extension (.jpg, .gif,
.txt, etc.), right?  So are the speed differences in the color-ls code or
in the ANSI color display routines on whatever's connected to the box?

Anybody poke around with that?

Later,

 /---------------------------------------------------------------------\
|David A. Gatwood             And Richard Cory, one calm summer night,  |
|davagatw@mars              Went home and put a bullet through his head.|
|dgatwood@nyx.cs.du.edu              --Edwin Arlington Robinson         |
|http://mars.utm.edu/~davagatw -or- http://nox.cs.du.edu:8001/~dgatwood |
 \---------------------------------------------------------------------/