making the ls command my bitch
This is a discussion on making the ls command my bitch within the Slackware Linux Support forums, part of the Unix Operating Systems category; --> Kenneth wrote: > Again, there are no hidden files in Linux. you're a purist. the common usage is that ...
| |||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
02-19-2008, 10:38 AM
| ||||
| ||||
 Re: making the ls command my bitch Kenneth wrote: > Again, there are no hidden files in Linux. you're a purist. the common usage is that dot-files are 'hidden files', because a bare ls without options does not show them. you're like the language purist who claims that split infinitives are "wrong", while half the world uses them. -- Joost Kremers joostkremers@yahoo.com Selbst in die Unterwelt dringt durch Spalten Licht EN:SiS(9)      |
|
02-19-2008, 10:38 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: making the ls command my bitch "Kenneth" <Kenneth@pickone.anyone> wrote in message news:slrnc7tigm.vhn.Kenneth@localhost.localdomain. .. > On 2004-04-15, notbob <notbob@nothome.com> wrote: > > On 2004-04-15, Kenneth <Kenneth@pickone.anyone> wrote: > >> > >> That's not a hidden file, it's just a file that begins with a "." > >> > >> I've never heard of hidden Linux files. > > > > Nevertheless, that definition is commonly found throughout linux literature > > and the web. A typical linux google link: > > > > http://www.abriasoft.com/linuxdemo/c03/03-19.htm > > > > nb > > Actually, your comment is misleading. A search of google/linux for hidden > files will find the tern used, not in relation to Linux, but in relation to > the program ls. A number of people referring to hidden files as it relates > to a linux program does not make for a history in reference to linux. In > fact, the man page for ls makes no ref to hidden files, just dot files. > > Keep in mind, find, no options, displays dot files, jed directory command > displays dot files, lsattr, no option, displays dot files...etc etc. > > Again, there are no hidden files in Linux. > > ken <html> <style> .sarcastic_clap { tone : condesending; decorations : none; } </style> <body> <div class=sarcastic_clap> <h1>clap clap clap</h1> </div> </body> </html> Feel free to check my code! |
|
02-19-2008, 10:38 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: making the ls command my bitch On 2004-04-15, Joost Kremers <joostkremers@yahoo.com> wrote: > Kenneth wrote: >> Again, there are no hidden files in Linux. > > you're a purist. the common usage is that dot-files are 'hidden files', > because a bare ls without options does not show them. you're like the > language purist who claims that split infinitives are "wrong", while half > the world uses them. > Nope not right...I said, orginally, that there is no such thing as hidden linux files. Someone pointed out that the term is used often in the history of Linux. I pointed out that is true but only as it related to the use of a bare ls command....that does not make for hidden Linux files. It makes a case for hidden files only if you're using ls. This does not equal hidden linux files....that's all. It not a purist view. One programs display of files, or lack, does not make for hidden linux files. ken |
|
02-19-2008, 10:38 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: making the ls command my bitch On 2004-04-15, Scott Eberl <scott@airea420.com> wrote: > ><html> ><style> > .sarcastic_clap { > tone : condesending; > decorations : none; > } ></style> ><body> > <div class=sarcastic_clap> > <h1>clap clap clap</h1> > </div> ></body> ></html> > > Feel free to check my code! My comments only were meant to correct some slightly misleading information. They were not condesending. <condescending> Gee, how cute. A zinger in the form of some html code. I'll bet you're proud of this and, of course, you should be proud. However, just to be a little helpful, you might want to spell check condesending, you're missing a "c" ... but otherwise, I'm impressed. Very good work. </condescending> ken |
|
02-19-2008, 10:38 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: making the ls command my bitch Kenneth wrote: > Nope not right...I said, orginally, that there is no such thing as hidden > linux files. Someone pointed out that the term is used often in the history > of Linux. I pointed out that is true but only as it related to the use of a > bare ls command....that does not make for hidden Linux files. It makes a > case for hidden files only if you're using ls. This does not equal hidden > linux files....that's all. It not a purist view. it is, because you attach a specific meaning to the term "hidden files" that differs from how it is often understood in linux. in the context of linux, "hidden files" is generally a synonym to "dot files", that's just common usage. denying that fact, or insisting that it is not correct is purist. i mean, i agree that strictly speaking "hidden files" is not a very appropriate term for dot-files, but since most people do use it in that sense, i won't hesitate to do the same. > One programs display of > files, or lack, does not make for hidden linux files. well, apparently it does. ;-) -- Joost Kremers joostkremers@yahoo.com Selbst in die Unterwelt dringt durch Spalten Licht EN:SiS(9) |
|
02-19-2008, 10:39 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: making the ls command my bitch On 2004-04-15, Kenneth <Kenneth@pickone.anyone> wrote: > On 2004-04-15, Joost Kremers <joostkremers@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Kenneth wrote: >>> Again, there are no hidden files in Linux. >> >> you're a purist. the common usage is that dot-files are 'hidden files', >> because a bare ls without options does not show them. you're like the >> language purist who claims that split infinitives are "wrong", while half >> the world uses them. >> > > Nope not right...I said, orginally, that there is no such thing as hidden > linux files. Someone pointed out that the term is used often in the history > of Linux. I pointed out that is true but only as it related to the use of a > bare ls command....that does not make for hidden Linux files. It makes a > case for hidden files only if you're using ls. This does not equal hidden > linux files....that's all. It not a purist view. One programs display of > files, or lack, does not make for hidden linux files. > > ken I would note that both nautilus (gnome) and konqueror (kde) call them hidden files as well. I would think it would be hard to say therefor that the term is not widely used. -- Only trust pipe smoking penguins. |
|
02-19-2008, 10:39 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: making the ls command my bitch -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In alt.os.linux.slackware, Kenneth dared to utter, > One programs display of > files, or lack, does not make for hidden linux files. When that program is probably the single most run program on any given linux machine, I'd say they are considered hidden files. GUI file managers typically don't show them either, unless you check an option to "display hidden files and directories" (or something similar). Face it, they ARE hidden files. If it looks like a duck, moves like a duck, flies like a duck, and talks like a duck, it's a duck. - -- It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise, Than for a man to hear the song of fools. Ecclesiastes 7:5 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAfxITL3KiNGOqr6ERAt0mAJ4suUdAAv0T/KICsL9E59mzAuLiCACguxMP jc7Qm6wJ/FRJfC8XHzEkCh8= =257O -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
02-19-2008, 10:39 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: making the ls command my bitch Alan Hicks wrote: > it, they ARE hidden files. If it looks like a duck, moves like a duck, > flies like a duck, and talks like a duck, it's a duck. you forgot the quacking. i like the quacking. ;-) -- Joost Kremers joostkremers@yahoo.com Selbst in die Unterwelt dringt durch Spalten Licht EN:SiS(9) |
|
02-19-2008, 10:39 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: making the ls command my bitch -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: >> ls -ad .??* > > That of course misses any files like .xx where there are two > valid characters after the dot. Incorrect: pentium:~$ bash --version GNU bash, version 2.05.0(1)-release (i386-tripleg-linux-gnu) Copyright 2000 Free Software Foundation, Inc. pentium:~$ touch .xx pentium:~$ ls -ad .??* ..bash_history .cvspass .lesskey .rnd .xx ..bash_logout .inputrc .lessrc .spamassassin/ ..cpan/ .less .mysql_history .ssh/ pentium:~$ >>To list only "hidden" files: >> >> ls -ad .??* | grep -v /$ > > That is, /files/ and not /directories/. Errr... what DID you think I wrote? > But use, > > /bin/ls -ad1F .[^.]* | grep -v /$ "Ask eight Slackers..." pentium:~$ ls -ad .??* | grep -v /$ ..bash_history ..bash_logout ..cvspass ..inputrc ..less ..lesskey ..lessrc ..mysql_history ..rnd ..xx pentium:~$ My suggestion is quite functional (and shorter). Mea culpa on charges of UUOG on the last two examples. I was on a "grepping roll" at the time... - -- George Georgakis geegATtripleg_net_au http://www.tripleg.net.au/ SlackBuild Central - http://slackpack.tripleg.net.au/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQA/AwUBQH6Z2klp3nJf7PixEQIeewCeIzLTzUMOdXMmeHZtrU0PEh Zf+8EAoMw8 UL0UPYbHOMCSdTPOjmM1KwEJ =SDu6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
02-19-2008, 10:39 AM
| ||||
| ||||
| Re: making the ls command my bitch Kenneth <Kenneth@pickone.anyone> wrote: >On 2004-04-15, notbob <notbob@nothome.com> wrote: >> On 2004-04-15, Kenneth <Kenneth@pickone.anyone> wrote: >>> >>> That's not a hidden file, it's just a file that begins with a "." >>> >>> I've never heard of hidden Linux files. >> >> Nevertheless, that definition is commonly found throughout linux literature >> and the web. A typical linux google link: >> >> http://www.abriasoft.com/linuxdemo/c03/03-19.htm >> >> nb > >Actually, your comment is misleading. A search of google/linux for hidden >files will find the tern used, not in relation to Linux, but in relation to >the program ls. A number of people referring to hidden files as it relates >to a linux program does not make for a history in reference to linux. In >fact, the man page for ls makes no ref to hidden files, just dot files. Actually, the term is a loan word from MS-DOS. Prior to the common use of "hidden files" term in DOS, it was not used in UNIX to reference dot files. After DOS became popular, people started using the term to refer to dot files on UNIX systems. Obviously that preceded Linux by a number of years, and has nothing to do exclusively with Linux. It also has less to do with ls than with the shell itself, because all ls is doing is emulating the way the shell globs using the '*' wildcard (which does not match files beginning with a dot). >Keep in mind, find, no options, displays dot files, jed directory command >displays dot files, lsattr, no option, displays dot files...etc etc. > >Again, there are no hidden files in Linux. That is only true if you want to play word games, claiming they are "hidden files" in MS-DOS, but "dot files" on a Unix system. Try these commands, /bin/ls * and /bin/ls .* To see what the shell does. -- Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@barrow.com |
Linear Mode
