[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ls -l --no-total
|
From: |
Alfred M. Szmidt |
|
Subject: |
Re: ls -l --no-total |
|
Date: |
Sat, 26 Feb 2005 05:39:05 +0100 |
> Did I mention ls should have a --no-total option
> to remove those annoying
> total 1120
> without needing to pipe to a filter.
Another possibility would be to output the `total' to stderr.
The horror, why do people come up with these silly ideas? `total
NNNNN' is not a error message, and doesn't belong on stderr.
Do it correctly, extend ls so that the user can modify the output like
for stat.
I'm still horrified...
- ls -l --no-total, Dan Jacobson, 2005/02/25
- Re: ls -l --no-total, Felipe Kellermann, 2005/02/25
- Re: ls -l --no-total,
Alfred M. Szmidt <=
- Re: ls -l --no-total, Felipe Kellermann, 2005/02/26
- Re: ls -l --no-total, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2005/02/26
- Re: ls -l --no-total, P, 2005/02/28
- Re: ls -l --no-total, James Youngman, 2005/02/28
- Re: ls -l --no-total, P, 2005/02/28