Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ncr-sd.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!ncr-sd!greg From: greg@ncr-sd.UUCP (Greg Noel) Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards Subject: Re: ls -C considered harmful (really ls follies) Message-ID: <261@ncr-sd.UUCP> Date: Thu, 15-Aug-85 20:39:43 EDT Article-I.D.: ncr-sd.261 Posted: Thu Aug 15 20:39:43 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 19-Aug-85 22:57:52 EDT References: <3123@nsc.UUCP> Reply-To: greg@ncr-sd.UUCP (Greg Noel) Organization: NCR Corporation, Torrey Pines Lines: 16 In article <3123@nsc.UUCP> chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) 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? Well, I have. A version of `ls' from the University of Illinois called `lz' had an option that did that. It also had an option that did directories recursivly....... I do think that it is the case that the options to `ls' are not sufficiently orthogonal. For example, many times I have wanted to print out just the file size in bytes and the name, and I can't do it easily. In retrospect, it would have been better to have a set of options that controlled which colums were to be printed and another set to specify which columns should be sorted. Or is that too obvious? -- -- Greg Noel, NCR Rancho Bernardo Greg@ncr-sd.UUCP or Greg@nosc.ARPA