From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 18:43:18 +0100 From: tlaronde@polynum.com To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Message-ID: <20120116174318.GA382@polynum.com> References: <20120114080106.GA807@polynum.com> <20120115161831.GA624@polynum.com> <20120116114618.GA618@polynum.com> <4F144CBD.2000208@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F144CBD.2000208@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [9fans] du vs. ls: duplication or not? Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5d49e6ec-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 11:13:49AM -0500, Joel C. Salomon wrote: >=20 > My guess would be that this discussion illustrates exactly why: ls(1) i= s > a gadget that pretty-prints the directory entry. Extending it with '-R= ' > would require it to learn about possibly-circular mount points; yuck. > On the other hand, du(1) has this sort of feature as its raison d'=EAtr= e. And as my blunders have shown, du(1) tries but does not succeed. And Disk Usage has only a meaning on a file server for the file locally served.=20 But the thread will be going nowhere, since, if I'm convinced that du(1) is special, I'm not convinced it makes really sense as a "general" tool in a Plan9 environment. But let this thread dies. I have some job to do on fdisk. --=20 Thierry Laronde http://www.kergis.com/ Key fingerprint =3D 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C