Hi there,

In recent versions of Linux distributions, there seems
to be a change on how "ls" prints out the hidden files.

In particular, typing "ls - alF" used to result in
printing first the hidden files/directories and then
the regular files/directories.

Now, this command prints out both hidden and regular files
sorting them our with respect to the fist letter of the file name
excluding the dot ".".

Is there any way to revert to the old way?
I read ls man page but I could not find something relevant.

Thank you in advance.

PD

Report this post to a moderator

On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 16:05:59 GMT, PD wrote:
>
> In recent versions of Linux distributions, there seems
> to be a change on how "ls" prints out the hidden files.
>
> In particular, typing "ls - alF" used to result in
> printing first the hidden files/directories and then
> the regular files/directories.
>
> Now, this command prints out both hidden and regular files
> sorting them our with respect to the fist letter of the file name
> excluding the dot ".".
>
> Is there any way to revert to the old way?
> I read ls man page but I could not find something relevant.

I don't recall the 'old way' but is "ls -laX" what you want?

--
Jim jimchip 'at' spamcop.net
Capitalism is a system used by
some people to exploit other people.
Socialism is the reverse.

Report this post to a moderator

Jimchip wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 16:05:59 GMT, PD wrote:
>
>>In recent versions of Linux distributions, there seems
>>to be a change on how "ls" prints out the hidden files.
>>
>>In particular, typing "ls - alF" used to result in
>>printing first the hidden files/directories and then
>>the regular files/directories.
>>
>>Now, this command prints out both hidden and regular files
>>sorting them our with respect to the fist letter of the file name
>>excluding the dot ".".
>>
>>Is there any way to revert to the old way?
>>I read ls man page but I could not find something relevant.
>
>
> I don't recall the 'old way' but is "ls -laX" what you want?


Hi Jimchip,

No "ls -alX" is not the answer I am looking for; the man page says
for -X: "sort alphabetically by entry extension" but in my box it
produces a rather strange shorting (??)

Thanks anyway!

PD

Report this post to a moderator

PD wrote:

> Jimchip wrote:

> No "ls -alX" is not the answer I am looking for; the man page says
> for -X: "sort alphabetically by entry extension" but in my box it
> produces a rather strange shorting (??)

$ export LC_ALL=POSIX

Report this post to a moderator