This the kind of thing find is for:
find * -type f
Patrick Nelson wrote:
> Harry Putnam wrote:
> -
> You could just let ls do it:
> ls -d */
> -
>
> What about the opposite... if you only wanted the files?
>
>
>
> __
Harry Putnam wrote:
-
You could just let ls do it:
ls -d */
-
What about the opposite... if you only wanted the files?
___
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/
Mike Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> just a related point I find the following alias very useful
> lsd='ls -l|grep ^d'
> works to just give a list of directories (handy for weeding compile
> trees)
You could just let ls do it:
ls -d */
___
Redh
--- Harry Putnam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Anthony E. Greene"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On 19-May-2002/20:02 -0400, Statux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>The old default behavior of "ls" was to list directory contents
> in
> >>alphabetical order with hidden objects first before regul
"Anthony E. Greene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 19-May-2002/20:02 -0400, Statux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>The old default behavior of "ls" was to list directory contents in
>>alphabetical order with hidden objects first before regular objects. Now
>>adays, "ls" ignores the leading '.' of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 19-May-2002/20:02 -0400, Statux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The old default behavior of "ls" was to list directory contents in
>alphabetical order with hidden objects first before regular objects. Now
>adays, "ls" ignores the leading '.' of object
On Sun, 2002-05-19 at 19:02, Statux wrote:
> The old default behavior of "ls" was to list directory contents in
> alphabetical order with hidden objects first before regular objects. Now
> adays, "ls" ignores the leading '.' of object names and the case, and just
> puts everything in ABC order.
>
I had this problem once when you ls the list, you'll see that many of
them have similar characteristics, so you can do an rm -f thifile???.*, and
delete them a few at a time...
In my particular instance, this did not work, as there were, like 1 of
each similar filename (It was an SGI ser
On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 08:45:30AM -0600, SoloCDM wrote:
> Recently I executed the following command:
>
> rm -f dummy "ls -t msg.* | sed -e 1,900d"
>
> As a result, I received the following error:
>
> bash: /bin/ls: Argument list too long
>
> I know why (14,522 msg.* files exist in t
