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
***