From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 13:06:55 -0500
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <6c01ad724f40c14fbdf63962e7d827e2@chula.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <20120116174318.GA382@polynum.com>
References: <20120114080106.GA807@polynum.com>
	<CAOw7k5iApz8mkb1kaBQe+4rG-TTC1oOLu1kYJQDmrFCx7QCC_Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<20120115161831.GA624@polynum.com>
	<d4aaeac9019d72d94f2bb7c6af6ab1a1@chula.quanstro.net>
	<20120116114618.GA618@polynum.com> <4F144CBD.2000208@gmail.com>
	<20120116174318.GA382@polynum.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [9fans] du vs. ls: duplication or not?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5deaa780-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Mon Jan 16 12:46:42 EST 2012, tlaronde@polynum.com wrote:
> 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)=
 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=
=AAtre.
>=20
> And as my blunders have shown, du(1) tries but does not succeed.

you got the correct answer to the "wrong" question.  that's not
du's fault.  and changing the name of the program to "ls" will not
change the behavior.

- erik