[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#10013: man ls
From: |
Ian Bruntlett |
Subject: |
bug#10013: man ls |
Date: |
Thu, 10 Nov 2011 18:22:45 +0000 |
Hi,
I was berating an AT&Ter at an ACCU conference a long time ago. I said that
"ls" was an example of Unix's unhelpfulness. When he told me that "ls" was
short for "list sorted", I remembered it to this day.
Had a look at your man page for ls - it states:-
List information about the FILEs (the current directory by default).
Sort entries alphabetically if none of -cftuvSUX nor --sort.
Do you think it would be a worthwhile thing to let people know directly that ls
is short for "list sorted"?
TTFN,
Ian
-- ACCU - Professionalism in programming - http://www.accu.org/
- bug#10013: man ls,
Ian Bruntlett <=
- bug#10013: man ls, Eric Blake, 2011/11/10
- Message not available
- bug#10013: man ls, Eric Blake, 2011/11/10
- Message not available
- bug#10013: man ls, Eric Blake, 2011/11/10
- bug#10013: man ls, Paul Eggert, 2011/11/10
- bug#10013: man ls, Ian Bruntlett, 2011/11/11
- bug#10013: man ls, Paul Eggert, 2011/11/11
bug#10013: man ls, Bob Proulx, 2011/11/10
bug#10013: man ls, Paul Eggert, 2011/11/29