How to modify the ls command?

[bsdnewbie999]

ls program in bsd display all the contents in the current directory but some file are directories. I know with the option ls -F can differentiate between them. Then I come out the question, can i modify the ls program to display the directory in color and others remain the same just like Linux.

[BSDfan666]

OpenBSD's ls(1) does not support colours, but if really require such a ridiculous feature.. someone has created a modified version, you can find it in the ports tree.

Here is shortcut: sysutils/colorls

[wraith0x2b]

To add to what BSDfan666 said, after (or if) you install colorls, you should alias ls to point to colorls
for bash this would mean adding `alias ls="colorls"` to ~/.bashrc

[marcolino]

To add even more, use:

alias ls='colorls -G'

[Zmyrgel]

Originally Posted by BSDfan666

OpenBSD's ls(1) does not support colours, but if really require such a ridiculous feature.. someone has created a modified version, you can find it in the ports tree.

Why do you say that color support in ls is ridiculous? I'd say colors quickly indicate which kind of files directory has. It's much easier to read ls output with colors.

[BSDfan666]

I beg to differer, that's what file(1) is for.. there is no point arguing though, this is just my personal opinion.

[Oko]

Originally Posted by BSDfan666

I beg to differer, that's what file(1) is for.. there is no point arguing though, this is just my personal opinion.

It is hard to argue with Ubuntu users who think that the other systems
should behave the same.

[TerryP]

Originally Posted by Zmyrgel

Why do you say that color support in ls is ridiculous? I'd say colors quickly indicate which kind of files directory has. It's much easier to read ls output with colors.

Actually 'ls -F' is much better IMHO, and much more reliable if you want the information retained when piping data into another program. I've found the '/', '*', '@', '=', '%', and '|' to be excellent visual indicators of things, while file and vi are more useful for inspecting a files contents. The colours are better for ascetics then anything else.


If anyone requires syntax highlighting to write code, they probably do not know how to write code in the first place. If anyone requires colour output to tell directories from files, they are probably a dipstick.

Simple.

[gosha]

If anyone requires syntax highlighting to write code, they probably do not know how to write code in the first place. If anyone requires colour output to tell directories from files, they are probably a dipstick.

This is interesting. As you might all know from my previous posts I'm not a programmer, but after starting to use OpenBSD I also switched to Latex (which, if I understand right, is to some extent a programming language) to get my papers done. Well, I used it in black and white for a long time, then discovered that Vim supports color syntax highlighting, tried it, and found it useful, especially because, for example, you can spot out a \emph{blabla} inside e paragraph quickly.
Now the question: why is using syntax highlighting to be considered a bad habit? And what are the strategies to make do without?
tks

[ocicat]

Originally Posted by gosha

why is using syntax highlighting to be considered a bad habit?

You may be taking the comments made in this thread a bit too literally.

There is nothing inherently evil about color syntax highlighting, however if it becomes a crutch such that you have to have it available, then this may become a problem when you have to migrate to systems which don't have your specific customizations configured.

I use color syntax highlighting on occasions for similar reasons: it can help bring to focus certain aspects of structure, but I can also live without it. Emacs colors differently (by default) than vim, so because I have spent a lot of time in Emacs lately, suddenly moving to vim initially seems odd. Most editors make the colors configurable, but I don't find the default choices so distasteful in these environments to do anything about it. Besides, on OpenBSD systems, I tend to use mg(1) which doesn't provide color syntax highlighting at all. Also, it's better because it is faster.

I suspect the consternation you may be reading in this thread result from the fact Linux distributions tend to have the output of ls(1) color-coded. Personally, I find this distracting, but that is my opinion, & preference. If others find it helpful, fine. This debate can quickly decay into a religious war which doesn't possess significant value.

Now if you start treading on my ANSI color-fied shell prompt, then those are fighting words.

So it's a question of what has been your experience, & what your choices are based upon that experience. Nothing more. If you like color-syntax highlighting great. If you don't, that's fine too. It's merely a feature.