Subject: Re: bug#27919: 25.2.50; dired + eshell-ls: fallback to external ls fails

From: Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2017 09:04:39 +0300

> From: John Wiegley <[email-masked]>
> Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2017 14:46:14 -0700
> Cc: Tino Calancha <[email-masked]>, [email-masked],
> 	Tino Calancha <[email-masked]>
> 
> If anything, why not get rid of ls-lisp?

Because (a) it's much smaller than Eshell, so better suited for
something that's preloaded; and (b) it supports quite a few options
that Eshell doesn't, AFAIK, and which Windows users might expect to be
available, as they are available in "other file-system browsers".

I actually think that getting rid of any of these two is not a good
idea, but that's me.