leam hall <leamh...@gmail.com>: > Colorized ls is something the distrobution people like and they put it > in. Others of us don't care for it. But it's not "Linux", is the > profile. Easy to customize.
Easy and easy... "Linux" means so many things to people. For example, the recent "Linux Subsystem on Windows 10" is funny in that Linux is the one thing it most definitely doesn't have. Closer to home, systemd has taken a central role in the main Linux distributions. I think it would be more accurate to call them "systemd distros" than "Linux distros". It is not at all easy for the Linux user to figure out what configuration options there are, and which ones are intended for end-user configuration. More and more, such tuning needs to be done via systemd unit files (or applicable GUI facilities) and the classical configuration files are deprecated. For example, how can a programmer get a core file of a crashing program? Why, you need to use the systemd-coredump service, of course: <URL: https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd-coredum p.html> BTW, I'm not ranting against systemd here, just stating the tectonic shift that is undergoing in the Linux world. As far as "ls" goes, its man page states: The LS_COLORS environment variable can change the settings. Use the dircolors command to set it. Yes, my distro does contain "/etc/profile.d/colorls.sh" but nothing indicates whether the system administrator should or should not touch the file. I can't seem to locate a mention of it here: <URL: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/f26/system-administrators-guide/B ook_Info.html#> Also, you need some detective work to derive the luser configuration interface from "/etc/profile.d/colorls.sh". Marko -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
