[test@localhost scripts]$ ll | grep -v 'sh'
total 12
-rw-rw-r--. 1 test test 0 2010-12-11 23:13 +
-rw-rw-r--. 1 test test 0 2010-12-11 23:35 f
-rw-rw-r--. 1 test test 0 2010-12-11 23:35 fdate
-rw-rw-r--. 1 test test 0 2010-12-11 23:13 filename
-rw-rw-r--. 1 test test 0 2010-12-11 23:40 filename20101209
-rw-rw-r--. 1 test test 0 2010-12-11 23:40 filename20101210
-rw-rw-r--. 1 test test 0 2010-12-11 23:40 filename20101211
-rw-rw-r--. 1 test test 0 2010-12-11 23:13 filenamedate
-rw-rw-r--. 1 test test 0 2010-12-11 23:25 ll
-rw-rw-r--. 1 test test 0 2010-12-11 23:25 lldate
-rw-rw-r--. 1 test test 0 2010-12-11 23:13 test
-rw-rw-r--. 1 test test 0 2010-12-11 23:13 testdate
-rw-rw-r--. 1 test test 0 2010-12-11 23:13 %Y%m%d
-rw-rw-r--. 1 test test 0 2010-12-11 23:37 +%Y%m%d

[test@localhost scripts]$ ll | grep -v 'sh' | xargs rm
rm: invalid option -- 'w'
Any help will be appreciated.

'find . -type f -not -iname sh -print0|xargs -0 rm'[EDIT]: 'll' may be an alias meaning "long listing" so all the args are seen by 'rm' as either entities or switches. Perfect example why people shouldn't use 'ls' in the first place.[/EDIT]

Thank you.

This probably will do better than what the OP is thinking:

You see, ls unlike ll doesn't list modes or anything like that by default, so technically because of that rm doesn't think those modes (i.e. -rw-rw-r--) are switches, flags, or options passed to rm.

1 members found this post helpful.

Using 'ls' is like using 'cat file|grep' (grep file) or 'ps|grep -v grep|grep processname' (pgrep processname) so IMHO using 'find' still is the lesser error-prone way: for instance 'find' can use "-print0" and xargs understands that with "-0" while 'ls' can't even print output and null terminate it.

What would you expect to happen if you entered the command: