text file saved in COM format..

  • Thread starter Thread starter mistral
  • Start date Start date
NoStop said:
(e-mail address removed) wrote:

<snipped alot> ... And last post regarding Linux commands in this
newsgroup. :-)
Click to expand...

That's one way of interpreting it. Somebody that isn't such a linux fan
might have a different interpretation!!
No you mustn't. Just adjust the parameters to not include . and .. entries:

ls -l .?*

Or just get the count:

ls -l .?* | wc -l
Click to expand...


..?* <-- includes .. so that's no good.

..??* <-- that is more correct.. But it's a 70% solution. It's also
excluding things i'd want, like .a .b .c I wanted all hidden
files or directories. But not . and ..

And you haven't solved the problem of displaying only files (those
files that are not directories). You can't do it with one command and
a small number of keystrokes.
You can display only directories quite easily with ls, but not only
'files'.

DOS doesn't have those problems!
DOS++ !! ;-)
 
That's one way of interpreting it. Somebody that isn't such a linux fan
might have a different interpretation!!



.?* <-- includes .. so that's no good.

.??* <-- that is more correct.. But it's a 70% solution. It's also
excluding things i'd want, like .a .b .c I wanted all hidden
files or directories. But not . and ..
Click to expand...
Geez. OK, I didn't understand then what you wanted. If you want all hidden
files or directories, but not . and .. then try:

ls -Al

And you haven't solved the problem of displaying only files (those
files that are not directories). You can't do it with one command and
a small number of keystrokes.
You can display only directories quite easily with ls, but not only
'files'.
Click to expand...
In Linux/Unix everything is a file, including directories, devices and
processes.
DOS doesn't have those problems!
Click to expand...

These aren't "problems" ... but maybe they are in your mind. I haven't paid
much attention to what seems to you to be such a burning problem with
Linux, as I've never found it necessary.

DOS has so many other problems compared to the way Linux does things that a
reply to your statement is really just wasting time.
DOS++ !! ;-)
Click to expand...

Well then stick with DOS. It's your choice. Or if you're so much into the
feeble DOS prompt run DOSEMU or whatever that DOS emulator for Linux is
called.


--
Linux is ready for the desktop! More ready than Windoze XP.
http://tinyurl.com/ldm9d

You just can't play games on Linux!
http://tinyurl.com/kgszl
 
NoStop said:
Geez. OK, I didn't understand then what you wanted. If you want all hidden
files or directories, but not . and .. then try:

ls -Al
Click to expand...
Geez. OK, I didn't understand then what you wanted. If you want all hidden
files or directories, but not . and .. then try:

ls -Al
Click to expand...

well, you had me right the first time.. I may have mistakenly added 1
problem just now, similar to all the rest - or perhaps I was thinking
that perhaps that one would be solved by ls even if the others
couldn't!. But that doesn't change the originals.. The problem is
related to the others. ls -Al solution isn't it.

ls -Al doesn't show all hidden files or hidden directories. (though it
does exclude . and ..)

ls -Al does everything whether hidden or not hidden. I wanted only
hidden!

i'll simplify my original problems. No 'ors'

Only hidden files.
Only hidden directories
Only files

The problem most recently mentioned, -
Hidden files or hidden directories. ( it's not ls -Al !! )


of course, when I say files, I mean non directories.
<snip>


These are all related problems, I can't see any of them solved.
Not even the last one!


They are trivial in DOS, and should really be trivial in linux. Perhaps
they are trivial in linux. Though the solutions just aren't as tidy as
they should be. Maybe ls and grep combined are required.

You write as if I am saying DOS is better.. I'm not. I'm sure you
can do more with linux than with DOS, but it aint necessarily gonna be
pretty. They may be long/tedious(in keystrokes) and working. Or
short/neat but broken !! Short/neat but broken are fine interactively,
when you know where the breaks are and they don't matter. But if you
want 100% working solutions, it's tedious. I hope it's just ls with
these problems. Maybe one day a programmer will improve ls. Though, do
old linux commands get improved?
I did read in the man ls, or info ls (yeah, it's documented in 2
places!!), that ls is too bloated!
 
Back
Top