Re: /bin/ls vs .dotted files

[Dan Cross <crossd@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 2:29 PM, sad@bestmx.ru <sad@bestmx.ru> wrote:
> Dan Cross пиÑ?еÑ?:
>> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 7:45 PM, sad@bestmx.ru <sad@bestmx.ru> wrote:
>>> /bin/ls (without arguments)
>>> if called by root-user
>>> lists ".dotted" files
>>> WHY????????????????????????
>>
>> Probably a better question is why 'dotfiles' are ever hidden by ls.
>> This was an historical mistake that never got corrected.
>
> maybe it was, maybe not.

It was.

> it is easy to accept either behavior unless it is constantly changing.
> and i found the hiding files a bit useful and i usually rely on it.

It's not "constantly changing."  It is quite well specified; you just
don't like what it is specified to be.

>> As for why the default behavior for root is different, it's probably
>> to help system administrators see past the munchkin trick of intruders
>> trying to cover their tracks by hiding things in, e.g., dot
>> directories.  If one runs 'ls' as root and sees, '.h4x0Rd00d', it's a
>> good indication that you've got a problem.
>
> you shall NOT appeal to security in UI questions ever

That's obtuse.

> bound "security" and "hidden" in one sentence and you will shot your own leg
> off.

I don't even know what this sentence means.

If you are doing something relatively out of the norm (which you are),
then it's on you to read up on what the standard specifies the
behavior to be and act accordingly.  What you are arguing against is
well-specified behavior.  You just think it's suboptimal.  That's
fine, but that doesn't change the fact that it is well-specified.

        - Dan C.