From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <4F144CBD.2000208@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:13:49 -0500
From: "Joel C. Salomon" <joelcsalomon@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:9.0) Gecko/20111229 Thunderbird/9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: 9fans@9fans.net
References: <20120114080106.GA807@polynum.com>
	<CAOw7k5iApz8mkb1kaBQe+4rG-TTC1oOLu1kYJQDmrFCx7QCC_Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<20120115161831.GA624@polynum.com>
	<d4aaeac9019d72d94f2bb7c6af6ab1a1@chula.quanstro.net>
	<20120116114618.GA618@polynum.com>
In-Reply-To: <20120116114618.GA618@polynum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [9fans] du vs. ls: duplication or not?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5d2e1c46-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On 01/16/2012 06:46 AM, tlaronde@polynum.com wrote:
> It seems what I'm trying to say is not clear. I know that shipping Plan=
9
> 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)=
.

My guess would be that this discussion illustrates exactly why: ls(1) is
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'=C3=AAt=
re.

--Joel