From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 12:46:18 +0100 From: tlaronde@polynum.com To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Message-ID: <20120116114618.GA618@polynum.com> References: <20120114080106.GA807@polynum.com> <20120115161831.GA624@polynum.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Subject: Re: [9fans] du vs. ls: duplication or not? Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5cf40286-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 04:17:43PM -0500, erik quanstrom wrote: > > Since ls(1) gives the size of the file; since du(1) can not really or at > > least not always in an arbitrary context tells the "real" occupation of > > disk size, is not ls(1) enough? > > plan 9 ls does not have a -R option. It seems what I'm trying to say is not clear. I know that shipping Plan9 has no '-R'. What I mean is, since find(1) and others are not here because they are duplicating other utils, and can be recreated with other "primitives", why du(1) was kept and not simply ls(1) extended with a '-R'? Since ls(1) already displays the size of a file (in bytes). -- Thierry Laronde http://www.kergis.com/ Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C