You do if you an argument list that is to large. try using just ls with 7000 files and see what happens. :-)
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 10:58:53AM -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote: > Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > > > Well, if you really want something equivalent to 'ls *', you'd need to > > do something like > > > > find . -maxdepth 1 \( -name .\* -o -print \) | xargs ls > > > > The "-maxdepth 1" is to not descend recursively into directories, and > > the "-name .\*" is to avoid listing hidden files/directories (which > > would not be matched by the '*' glob). The "-type f" is actually > > wrong, as '*' will match directories as well. > > > > Also beware that ls may be an alias, and xargs will run the actual > > executable in the path... > > Huh?!? Just type ls! You don't need anything else and certainly not > something as complicated as what you propose. > > > > > -- > Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple > Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html > Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html > FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ -- Slowly and surely the unix crept up on the Nintendo user ... Wayne Willcox I will not eat green eggs and ham [EMAIL PROTECTED] I will not eat them Sam I Am!! A wise person makes his own decisions, a weak one obeys public opinion. -- Chinese proverb -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
