What am I doing wrong ?
in [Slackware]
|
Prev: Slrnpull_root
Next: NOt connected to D-BUS server
From: no.top.post on 21 Jun 2010 22:18 Is this OS operating correctly ? > [root(a)localhost Legal]# ls *op > ls: *op: No such file or directory > [root(a)localhost Legal]# ls *op* > Apr26Ltop Legal:Dictionarys Legal:Top.Bak Log.Bak > Legal:Definitions LEGAL:SU LEGALXLA Routledge > Legal:Definitions.Bak Legal:Top Log > [root(a)localhost Legal]# Doesn't "*op" include "Legal:Top" ? How the hell does it include "LEGALXLA" ? Does anybody else believe is subconcious knowledge, like what told me to try `ls *op*` to find 'Legal:Top' While writing this, I think I discovered why Legal:Top is not seen in `ls *op`. So why didn't they restrict the valid file-ID to avoid this problem? TIA.
From: John Wingate on 21 Jun 2010 23:58 no.top.post(a)gmail.com wrote: > Is this OS operating correctly ? Probably. See below. >> [root(a)localhost Legal]# ls *op >> ls: *op: No such file or directory >> [root(a)localhost Legal]# ls *op* >> Apr26Ltop Legal:Dictionarys Legal:Top.Bak Log.Bak >> Legal:Definitions LEGAL:SU LEGALXLA Routledge >> Legal:Definitions.Bak Legal:Top Log >> [root(a)localhost Legal]# > > Doesn't "*op" include "Legal:Top" ? Yes. > How the hell does it include "LEGALXLA" ? It doesn't. > Does anybody else believe is subconcious knowledge, like what told me to try > `ls *op*` to find 'Legal:Top' I think you are confused. > While writing this, I think I discovered why Legal:Top is not seen in `ls *op`. > So why didn't they restrict the valid file-ID to avoid this problem? What did you discover? And I don't understand your question. But I doubt there is a real problem, since what you show is consistent with the way ls has behaved for forty years. Consider: $ ls topsyturvy $ ls *op ls: cannot access *op: No such file or directory $ ls *op* Apr26Ltop Legal:Definitions Legal:Top Log.Bak LEGAL:SU Legal:Definitions.Bak Legal:Top.Bak Routledge LEGALXLA Legal:Dictionarys Log $ ls -l total 4 drwxr-xr-x 2 jww jww 4096 2010-06-21 23:38 topsyturvy -- John Wingate Mathematics is the art which teaches johnww(a)worldpath.net one how not to make calculations. --Oscar Chisini
From: mjt on 22 Jun 2010 12:57 On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 22:58:25 -0500 John Wingate <johnww(a)worldpath.net> wrote: [snipped] > What did you discover? And I don't understand your question. But I > doubt there is a real problem, since what you show is consistent with > the way ls has behaved for forty years. Consider: > > $ ls > topsyturvy > $ ls *op > ls: cannot access *op: No such file or directory dumb question - how did all those files show up in the (ls *op*) list when you only have one file in the dir?: > $ ls *op* > Apr26Ltop Legal:Definitions Legal:Top Log.Bak > LEGAL:SU Legal:Definitions.Bak Legal:Top.Bak Routledge > LEGALXLA Legal:Dictionarys Log [snipped] -- Magnet, n.: Something acted upon by magnetism Magnetism, n.: Something acting upon a magnet. The two definitions immediately foregoing are condensed from the works of one thousand eminent scientists, who have illuminated the subject with a great white light, to the inexpressible advancement of human knowledge. -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary" <<< Remove YOURSHOES to email me >>>
From: J G Miller on 22 Jun 2010 13:10 On Tuesday, June 22nd, 2010 11:57:07 -0500, mjt asked: > dumb question - how did all those files show up in the (ls *op*) list > when you only have one file in the dir?: Yes, it is at first a little confusing. In fact there are no "files" in the directory, only the single directory topsyturvy. So when you do ls *op*, it matches the op in topsyturvy and then lists all of the files contained within, including the LEGALXLA. This is why it is always a good idea to use ls -l rather than ls to see what the filetypes of the entities are which are present.
From: Bill Waddington on 22 Jun 2010 13:15
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 11:57:07 -0500, mjt <myswtestYOURSHOES(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 22:58:25 -0500 >John Wingate <johnww(a)worldpath.net> wrote: > >[snipped] >> What did you discover? And I don't understand your question. But I >> doubt there is a real problem, since what you show is consistent with >> the way ls has behaved for forty years. Consider: >> >> $ ls >> topsyturvy >> $ ls *op >> ls: cannot access *op: No such file or directory > >dumb question - how did all those files show up in the >(ls *op*) list when you only have one file in the dir?: > >> $ ls *op* >> Apr26Ltop Legal:Definitions Legal:Top Log.Bak >> LEGAL:SU Legal:Definitions.Bak Legal:Top.Bak Routledge >> LEGALXLA Legal:Dictionarys Log >[snipped] [unsnipped] > $ ls -l > total 4 > drwxr-xr-x 2 jww jww 4096 2010-06-21 23:38 topsyturvy In John's example there's one _directory_ in the dir. Presumably it contains all those other files. The command is looking for _directories_ whos names have "op" in them and listing their contents. Bill -- William D Waddington william.waddington(a)beezmo.com "Even bugs...are unexpected signposts on the long road of creativity..." - Ken Burtch |