kali_fornication@lemmy.world to linuxmemes@lemmy.world · 1 month agofound a linuxbro out in the wildlemmy.worldimagemessage-square22linkfedilinkarrow-up11arrow-down10
arrow-up11arrow-down1imagefound a linuxbro out in the wildlemmy.worldkali_fornication@lemmy.world to linuxmemes@lemmy.world · 1 month agomessage-square22linkfedilink
minus-squareEager Eagle@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·1 month agoand that’s not even a ls -l
minus-squarekali_fornication@lemmy.worldOPlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 month agowc -l should give you the same thing with the long names since the line count is still the same
minus-squareEager Eagle@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·1 month agomy point is that, usually, just an ls will put more than one file per line
minus-squareChaosMonkey@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 month agoIt does detect the output is being piped though, and defaults to the -1 option in this case, which means print only filenames, one per line. The only issue would be filenames containing newline characters.
minus-squareDefederateLemmyMl@feddit.nllinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 month agoNot when the output is a pipe.
and that’s not even a
ls -lwc -lshould give you the same thing with the long names since the line count is still the samemy point is that, usually, just an
lswill put more than one file per lineIt does detect the output is being piped though, and defaults to the
-1option in this case, which means print only filenames, one per line. The only issue would be filenames containing newline characters.Not when the output is a pipe.