Linux - NewbieThis Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question?
If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
I am completely new to this shell things, so bear with me on a totally simple question.
I somehow managed to change something in my terminal window, because the 'ls' command shows me all files (including the so called dotfiles) as if I have used 'ls -a'.
I have searched on many places on the Internet, but the most I have found are some exotic manners of putting an alias on .bashrc to make 'ls' behave as 'ls -a'.
I have checked my .bashrc and there is no such alias.
What do I have to do to use 'ls' and make it not show dotfiles.
I somehow managed to change something in my terminal window
Does 'history; type ls; grep ls -r ~/.bash*' /etc/bash* /etc/profile*; ls -altr /etc/bash* /etc/profile*' show something that looks like an edit or echo command or files recently edited to look at? Does '\ls;' or 'unalias ls; ls;' show ls usage as you want?
First of all, thank you to everyone who helped me... your insights are really valuable as I still find a little alien this shell things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unSpawn
Does 'history; type ls; grep ls -r ~/.bash*' /etc/bash* /etc/profile*; ls -altr /etc/bash* /etc/profile*' show something that looks like an edit or echo command or files recently edited to look at? Does '\ls;' or 'unalias ls; ls;' show ls usage as you want?
@unSpawn : 'type ls' showed me: ls is aliased to /bin/ls $LS_OPTIONS'
So I used: 'echo $LS_OPTIONS' and found: '--color=tty -F -a -b -T 0' where I believe '-a' is the culprit. So now, I am wondering where this could be defined.
Distribution: Debian Sid AMD64, Raspbian Wheezy, various VMs
Posts: 7,680
Rep:
I would be looking in ~/.bashrc so see whether $LS_OPTIONS is defined there....
However! That is on my system which Iam familiar with. I think it might help if you tell us which distribution you are running and what changes have been made to it recently (updating packages, installing things, ...) since these things don't change themselves.
I would be looking in ~/.bashrc so see whether $LS_OPTIONS is defined there....
However! That is on my system which Iam familiar with. I think it might help if you tell us which distribution you are running and what changes have been made to it recently (updating packages, installing things, ...) since these things don't change themselves.
I am at a Bluehost hosting account (I believe it's running CentOS) so I have no way to know if an update was made.
There is nothing in my .bashrc file that points to setting the $LS_OPTIONS or ls. Maybe I could just redefine it without '-a' but I was wondering if there could be a solution that felt less hacky.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.