[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Size for Size is too small (ls/du)
From: |
Matthias Schniedermeyer |
Subject: |
Size for Size is too small (ls/du) |
Date: |
Wed, 15 Jan 2003 23:30:41 +0100 (CET) |
Hi
File-sizes get bigger. I have regularly files that are >= 1.000.000.000
bytes. This makes ls output a bit "difficult" to read and the format is
"jumpy" if they are mixed with files <= 999.999.999 in size.
Because of this i have patched the (s)printf of my local ls & du. But as i
don't believe that such a patch will be accepted "as is" i vote for a
commandline-switch "--bigger-format-for-size-field(s)" or something like
that.
Bis denn
--
Real Programmers consider "what you see is what you get" to be just as
bad a concept in Text Editors as it is in women. No, the Real Programmer
wants a "you asked for it, you got it" text editor -- complicated,
cryptic, powerful, unforgiving, dangerous.
- Size for Size is too small (ls/du),
Matthias Schniedermeyer <=
- Re: Size for Size is too small (ls/du), Alfred M. Szmidt, 2003/01/16
- Re: Size for Size is too small (ls/du), Matthias Schniedermeyer, 2003/01/16
- Re: Size for Size is too small (ls/du), Alfred M. Szmidt, 2003/01/16
- Re: Size for Size is too small (ls/du), Matthias Schniedermeyer, 2003/01/16
- Re: Size for Size is too small (ls/du), Alfred M. Szmidt, 2003/01/16
- Re: Size for Size is too small (ls/du), Matthias Schniedermeyer, 2003/01/16
- Re: Size for Size is too small (ls/du), Alfred M. Szmidt, 2003/01/16
- Re: Size for Size is too small (ls/du), Matthias Schniedermeyer, 2003/01/16