GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
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.
Yeah, which again is odd... Easily could be done with an alias or a soft symlink, but they chose to do it this way instead, I wonder what the reasoning is..
Huh. I guess Patrick didn't think it was a good reason. I can't find dir or vdir on my system - just a man page to all three and I couldn't figure anything from it that would indicate what was up. This is really weird. I can't find them in the system and I can't find an alias, but the commands work. I can't find anything in the bash man - I got to thinking maybe it was a builtin in 2.05b or something. What am I missing? vdir even prints out a funky display, like with preset options, which the man page says both are supposed to have. But if they function differently, they can't be hard links *either*. Or can they?
Yeah but, if it isn't a builtin or alias, I thought it had to be an actual file. How's it executing? What's executing? I even tried the info pages to see if it said anything different.
Wait - I just backgrounded and foregrounded vdir and got
[1]+ Done /bin/ls $LS_OPTIONS --format=long
And dir gives
[1]+ Done /bin/ls $LS_OPTIONS --format=vertical
But where are *they* coming from? Oddly, when I 'su' the command's not found for root, but when I 'su -', it is. And the path differences are trivial - numerous, but trivial.
It was kind of a funny novelty at first but this is starting to bug me. Ah well. I suppose there are more important things to figure out.
that is the one cool feature of ls that dir just can't do, is colorization of filenames, relevant to their type. Makes it much easier to see what the files are, as a lot of files, you can't tell whether they're files or directories.
Weird that you can't, since they're the 'same' things, but I couldn't get it to do it, either. -F does append symbols at the end of the filenames indicating major categories, though, which does make it easier than sorting out the permissions at the front of 'ls -l'.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.