Re: ls defaults...

2006-02-23 Thread Michelle Konzack
Hello Digby, Am 2006-02-15 14:41:07, schrieb Digby Tarvin: > Nothing other than what was done by the normal install program. > Perhaps it is something that results from telling it that I am > located in the UK... > > What is you default locale? Systemwide: C My own: [EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: ls defaults...

2006-02-15 Thread Digby Tarvin
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 10:22:24PM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote: > > Anyone know the story behind the apparent change in default 'ls' output > > on Debian - at least compared to all of the other Linux (and Unix) systems > > I have used? > > > > The difference I am referring to is the date format

Re: ls defaults...

2006-02-15 Thread Michelle Konzack
Am 2006-02-09 02:18:15, schrieb Digby Tarvin: > Anyone know the story behind the apparent change in default 'ls' output > on Debian - at least compared to all of the other Linux (and Unix) systems > I have used? > > The difference I am referring to is the date format used when the > '-l' option is

Re: ls defaults...

2006-02-09 Thread Digby Tarvin
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 11:10:10PM -0500, Shawn Lamson wrote: > except that most local users will have a different alias for ls set > in .bashrc i had the same phenomona here... my locales were set > to en_US .. I had problem upgrading locales lately... but > #export LC_TIME=POSIX , or LC_ALL=

Re: ls defaults...

2006-02-08 Thread Shawn Lamson
On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 18:58:31 -0800 Andrew Sackville-West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 02:18:15 + > Digby Tarvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Anyone know the story behind the apparent change in default 'ls' output > > on Debian - at least compared to all of the other Lin

Re: ls defaults...

2006-02-08 Thread Andrew Sackville-West
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 02:18:15 + Digby Tarvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anyone know the story behind the apparent change in default 'ls' output > on Debian - at least compared to all of the other Linux (and Unix) systems > I have used? > > The difference I am referring to is the date format u

ls defaults...

2006-02-08 Thread Digby Tarvin
Anyone know the story behind the apparent change in default 'ls' output on Debian - at least compared to all of the other Linux (and Unix) systems I have used? The difference I am referring to is the date format used when the '-l' option is used. For example, "ls -ld ." on the following systems p