lsix: ls for images
github.com
lsix: ls for images
1–10 of 111 posts
Re: lsix: ls for images
#2It's pretty incredible that this is a bash script that outputs sixel graphics, and it in no way makes use of libsixel[0].
Re: lsix: ls for images
#3Wouldn’t this be more like “cat” than “ls”? List is for listing files, cat is for outputting the files, and this appears to output the image...
Re: lsix: ls for images
#4Hmm, it doesn't look like xfce4-terminal supports sixel bitmaps.
Re: lsix: ls for images
#5It's pretty incredible that this is a bash script that outputs sixel graphics, and it in no way makes use of libsixel[0]. [0] https://github.com/saitoha/libsixel
It uses various Imagemagick tools (Imagemagick supports sixel).
Nobody manipulates binary files/pixel data in bash, do they?
Re: lsix: ls for images
#6How does the tech work? You have something like a 80x50 display and he's emitting 128x128px on that?
Re: lsix: ls for images
#7You can also specify filenames and, of course, use shell wild cards
However, some may be slow to render (like PDF), so lsix doesn't show them unless you ask specifically.
Regardless of the justification, I don't think creating such extra exception/edge-case behaviours are ever a good idea in a commandline tool like this. The equivalent in regular ls would be something like not showing more than X files "unless you ask specifically" --- which would just create more confusion than anything. As someone who has used the commandline for many years, one property which needs to be present for good usability is consistency. Having a bunch of edge-cases and special behaviours makes a tool hard to use for anything but the most extremely basic of operations.
Re: lsix: ls for images
#8You can also specify filenames and, of course, use shell wild cards However, some may be slow to render (like PDF), so lsix doesn't show them unless you ask specifically. Regardless of the justification, I don't think creating such extra exception/edge-case behaviours are ever a good idea in a commandline tool like this. The equivalent in regular ls would be something like not showing more than X files "unless you as…
ls does not show files starting with .
Re: lsix: ls for images
#9How many terminal emulators can handle sixel? (vt340)
Does anyone have a list?
Re: lsix: ls for images
#10You can also specify filenames and, of course, use shell wild cards However, some may be slow to render (like PDF), so lsix doesn't show them unless you ask specifically. Regardless of the justification, I don't think creating such extra exception/edge-case behaviours are ever a good idea in a commandline tool like this. The equivalent in regular ls would be something like not showing more than X files "unless you as…
ls does not show files starting with .
But there is a driving purpose behind that, hidden vs non-hidden is binary. With so many media formats I agree that consistency is very important.