OT again sorry [Re: Interactive scripts (back on topic for once) [was Re: The "loop and a half"]]

[Marko Rauhamaa]

leam hall <leamhall at 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