←back to thread

lsr: ls with io_uring

(rockorager.dev)
335 points mpweiher | 1 comments | 18 Jul 25 12:40 UTC | HN request time: 0.207s | source
Show context
danbruc ◴[18 Jul 25 13:45 UTC] No.44604591[source]▶
Why does this require inventing lsr as an alternative to ls instead of making ls use io_uring? It seems pretty annoying to have to install replacements for the most basic command line tools. And especially in this case, where you do not even do it for additional features, just for getting the exact same thing done a bit faster.
replies(6): >>44604637 #>>44604660 #>>44604674 #>>44604716 #>>44605151 #>>44605208 #
mschuster91 ◴[18 Jul 25 13:53 UTC] No.44604660[source]▶
> Why does this require inventing lsr as an alternative to ls instead of making ls use io_uring?

Good luck getting that upstreamed and accepted. The more foundational the tools (and GNU coreutils definitely is foundational), the more difficult that process will be.

Releasing a standalone utility makes iteration much faster, partially because one is not bound to the release cycles of distributions.

replies(2): >>44604730 #>>44604763 #
WorldMaker ◴[18 Jul 25 14:04 UTC] No.44604763[source]▶
In the history of Unix its also a common way to propose tool replacements, for instance how `less` became `more` on most systems, or `vim` became the new `vi` which in its day became the new `ed`.
replies(2): >>44605043 #>>44605868 #
1. JdeBP ◴[18 Jul 25 15:34 UTC] No.44605868[source]▶
Yes and no. We don't really have the equivalent of comp.sources.unix nowadays, which is where the early versions of those occurred, and comp.sources.unix did not take just anything. Rich Salz had rules.

Plus, since I actually took stevie and screen and others from comp.sources.unix and worked on them, and wasn't able to even send my improvements to M. Salz or the original authors at all, from my country, I can attest that contributing improvements had hurdles just as large to overcome back then as there exist now. They're just different.