[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Size for Size is too small (ls/du)
From: |
Alfred M. Szmidt |
Subject: |
Re: Size for Size is too small (ls/du) |
Date: |
Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:13:06 +0100 |
> File-sizes get bigger. I have regularly files that are >=
> 1.000.000.000 bytes. This makes ls output a bit "difficult" to read
> and the format is "jumpy" if they are mixed with files <=
> 999.999.999 in size.
>
> Why not just use --human-readable? I would have a hard time reading
> several lines of files that have such big sizes.
I sometimes need the exact size.
Then I suggest that you clean up your patch, follow the GNU Coding
Standard and make a nice ChangeLog entry (you can read about the
format of those in the GNU Coding Standard) and post the patch here.
Who knows, maybe it will be included.
Bis denn
--
Real Programmers consider "what you see is what you get" to be just as
bad a concept in Text Editors as it is in women. No, the Real Programmer
wants a "you asked for it, you got it" text editor -- complicated,
cryptic, powerful, unforgiving, dangerous.
- Size for Size is too small (ls/du), Matthias Schniedermeyer, 2003/01/15
- Re: Size for Size is too small (ls/du), Alfred M. Szmidt, 2003/01/16
- Re: Size for Size is too small (ls/du), Matthias Schniedermeyer, 2003/01/16
- Re: Size for Size is too small (ls/du),
Alfred M. Szmidt <=
- Re: Size for Size is too small (ls/du), Matthias Schniedermeyer, 2003/01/16
- Re: Size for Size is too small (ls/du), Alfred M. Szmidt, 2003/01/16
- Re: Size for Size is too small (ls/du), Matthias Schniedermeyer, 2003/01/16
- Re: Size for Size is too small (ls/du), Alfred M. Szmidt, 2003/01/16
- Re: Size for Size is too small (ls/du), Matthias Schniedermeyer, 2003/01/16