Re: display order from ls command

2002-08-26 Thread Michael Fratoni
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Monday 26 August 2002 11:08 pm, Roger wrote: > >Yes, edit /etc/sysconfig/i18n, and add the following line. > >LC_COLLATE=C > > > >You'll probably have to log out and back in before you see a change. > > I was given > LC_ALL=C > > Does LC_COLLATE ju

Re: display order from ls command

2002-08-26 Thread Roger
Around Mon,Aug 26 2002, at 11:03, Michael Fratoni, wrote: > >On Monday 26 August 2002 11:05 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Somewhere between 6 and 7 a change was made to the way that ls displays >> files with the -a option -- it no longer sorts entries in ascii order, >> but instead does a case

Re: display order from ls command

2002-08-26 Thread Michael Fratoni
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Monday 26 August 2002 11:05 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Somewhere between 6 and 7 a change was made to the way that ls displays > files with the -a option -- it no longer sorts entries in ascii order, > but instead does a case-insensitive sort t

display order from ls command

2002-08-26 Thread kent
Somewhere between 6 and 7 a change was made to the way that ls displays files with the -a option -- it no longer sorts entries in ascii order, but instead does a case-insensitive sort that also drops leading punctuation characters. Perhaps it's just old habits, but I much preferred the old be

Re: ls command

2002-05-23 Thread Samuel Flory
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? > > > > __

RE: ls command

2002-05-23 Thread Patrick Nelson
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/

Re: ls command

2002-05-23 Thread Harry Putnam
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

Re: ls command

2002-05-23 Thread Mike Martin
--- 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

Re: ls command

2002-05-23 Thread Harry Putnam
"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

Re: ls command

2002-05-21 Thread Anthony E. Greene
-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

Re: ls command

2002-05-19 Thread Bret Hughes
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. >

ls command

2002-05-19 Thread Statux
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. How would one go about changing things back to the o

RE: LS Command Error

2000-05-20 Thread Burke, Thomas G.
y 16, 2000 10:46 AM > To: Red Hat-List (redhat-list-request) > Subject: LS Command Error > > Recently I executed the following command: > > rm -f dummy "ls -t msg.* | sed -e 1,900d" > > As a result, I received the following error: > >

Re: LS Command Error

2000-05-20 Thread Steve Borho
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

LS Command Error

2000-05-19 Thread SoloCDM
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 the directory), but I need a solution. Note: Detailed Documentation(s) and