On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Strake <strake...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 06/01/2013, pancake <panc...@youterm.com> wrote: >> Didnt checked, but i guess that ls -s show size in bytes and du in block >> bytes, which depends on filesystem. > > Nope. Both show size in blocks [1]. > > It seems proper to do so in ls alone, with a flag of whether to add > sizes of all files below; thus we could drop du. One may argue that > the job of ls is not to add sizes, but now we have 2 utilities what > list files, which loses.
Real difference is du handles hard links (i.e. shows actual disk usage (as one would expect) by counting hard-linked files only once) while ls list files (as one would expect) (and optionally gives some information about them). Which wins. $ mkdir baz $ cd baz $ echo blahblahblahblahblah >foo $ ln foo bar $ ln bar x $ ln foo y $ ls -s . total 16 4 bar 4 foo 4 x 4 y $ du -s ./* 4 ./bar $ du -s . 8 . $ ls -sd . 4 ./ Cheers, -- ______________ Raphaël Proust
