Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site luke.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!oliveb!bene!luke!itkin From: itkin@luke.UUCP (Steven List) Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards Subject: Re: ls follies Message-ID: <321@luke.UUCP> Date: Sat, 17-Aug-85 22:05:13 EDT Article-I.D.: luke.321 Posted: Sat Aug 17 22:05:13 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 20-Aug-85 08:19:07 EDT References: <3123@nsc.UUCP> <1803@reed.UUCP> Reply-To: itkin@luke.UUCP (Steven List) Organization: Benetics Corp, Mt.View, CA Lines: 20 Summary: In article <1803@reed.UUCP> alexis@reed.UUCP (Alexis Dimitriadis) writes: >> Do you realize that for all the billions and billions of options hacked >> into ls, I've never seen a version of ls that can sort files based on size? >> shoe size of the programmer maybe, but never file size.... >> > What gets me is there is no way to convince ls to produce _unsorted_ >output! (never mind why... ok, I needed output in the order of the arguments). Wouldn't find . -type f -print | xargs ls -l... do this for you? Granted, in this simple case it does a recursive listing a la ls -R, but at least it's unsorted! -- *** * Steven List @ Benetics Corporation, Mt. View, CA * Just part of the stock at "Uncle Bene's Farm" * {cdp,greipa,idi,oliveb,sun,tolerant}!bene!luke!itkin ***