On 07/01/2013, Raphael Proust wrote:
> 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.
Ah, yes, I m
On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Strake wrote:
> On 06/01/2013, pancake 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
On 06/01/2013, pancake 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.
Didnt checked, but i guess that ls -s show size in bytes and du in block bytes,
which depends on filesystem.
ls -s : file size
du : disk used
On Jan 6, 2013, at 13:02, markus schnalke wrote:
> [2013-01-05 18:55] Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net>
>>
>>% ls -hs st-0.3/st
>>126K st
>
>
[2013-01-05 18:55] Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net>
>
> % ls -hs st-0.3/st
> 126K st
I wondered why 20h did not use `du -h st-0.3/st' instead.
Then I wondered why ls(1) has `-s' at all.
Even in 1st Edition Unix, ls(1) has `-s' although du(1) is available.
http://man.cat-v.o
