From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!npoiv!npois!cbosgd!mark
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Title: Re: Down with files that begin with a dot
Article-I.D.: cbosgd.2683
Posted: Wed Oct 13 00:23:13 1982
Received: Sun Oct 17 22:32:00 1982
References: utcsrgv.598

So tell me.  If ls showed all files, even those that began with a dot,
and the shell did likewise, why would you give a file a name that
began with a dot?

Berkeley almost adopted the BTL change (try /bin/ls or any USG ls) to
show everything except "." and "..", but the above reasoning convinced
them to keep the "feature".  If you prefer to see everything, include
	alias ls ls -a
in your .cshrc, and you'll get everything.

I can think of three reasons not to have a subdirectory for init files.

(1) Opening them up would be slower, because of the extra layer of
directories.

(2) Most logins on a typical system are casually used, with only a few
files and rarely logged in on.  But many systems like to give people a
default .login and .cshrc (or .profile or whatever).  If you put them
in a subdirectory, you're using up more disk space, and the output of
a "du" command will be that much more verbose.

(3) Upward compatibility.  There are a lot of programs out there that
use . files, and we all know what the chances are of getting them to
all change.

Nonetheless, it seems clear that having a subdirectory would have been
a cleaner way to go.  The original intent (which I suppose was to avoid
cluttering a listing when you don't have subdirectories - can you clarify
it for us, dmr?) is certainly not doing me any good anymore.

	Mark