 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in Craziness Domain. |
| User | Post |
| Ailure Posts: 2079/2602 |
Originally posted by /dev/null*moves over to dev null* *ceases to exist* |
| rm -rf / Posts: 8/25 |
*rm -rf / jumps to 0x00000000
ACCESS VIOLATION doh |
| Sonicandfails Posts: 726/917 |
Use the up and down arrow keys to move the highlight to your choice.
Press ENTER to choose. Seconds until highlighted choice will be started automatically: |
| Darkdata Posts: 780/983 |
*Darkdata.ink also jumps on this bandwagon. |
| FreeDOS + Posts: 994/1312 |
Originally posted by neotransotakuOriginally posted by FreeDOS That manual page seems to cover it very well, what do you have trouble understanding? |
| blackhole89 Posts: 298/427 |
Originally posted by /home/xkeeper/ ls -l > you You know, you can configure ls to display the long-format list by default. Even so, the short form is often much friendlier to overview if you have no need for all the additional data. On a less related note... * /dev/null jumps onto the fad bandwagon |
| neotransotaku Posts: 1787/1860 |
Originally posted by FreeDOS I said I could never get the find syntax to work  perhaps syntax is the wrong word to have used, arguments maybe? |
| FreeDOS + Posts: 993/1312 |
Probably through a program called find(1). Such a weird name for the task. |
| neotransotaku Posts: 1784/1860 |
how does one do a recursive search on UNIX? i can never get the find syntax to work  |
| FreeDOS + Posts: 991/1312 |
Ah yes, if my logs aren't lying (of which I'm pretty sure they're not, gaim isn't meant to lie), it was instead myself expressing how stupid relying them as the holy grail of accuracy is. Obviously, if I opened README.txt in gvim and found out that it was instead some binary goop, I'd probably be upset, more upset over whoever named it so. Then I'd use file and find out it was something else (like say, a JPEG). |
| HyperHacker Posts: 3954/5072 |
This reminds me of grade 6 when I would hide files on my floppy disk by making a big tree, each folder containing another 6 folders with random one-letter names. The files were in /C/O/F/F/E/E (this was a Mac). Trick was the last /E was a 7th hidden folder.
Of course, you could simply view the file tree and see it all...
Also see my "Real name" in my profile. Hey, there's a fun idea; switch Name and Real Name fields for a while. Originally posted by /c:/dos/run Funny, I could swear we had a long discussion on AIM in which you insisted file was the way to go.  |
| emcee Posts: 649/867 |
Originally posted by /hda1/lure See what you start by putting an inequality operator between two competing methods of doing the same task. |
| FreeDOS + Posts: 989/1312 |
The hidden flag is pointless on a multiuser operating system with permission bits. Hidden files are better suited towards configuration things you don't normally want to see. Some filesystems like ext2 or reiserfs have a hidden flag, though it's nearly useless. I don't see how any of this has to do with keeping "filenames that make sense", at least Unix lets you use many characters that Win/DOS restrict you from for little reason (usually archane reasons, like keeping compatibilty with 1970s CP/M applications, real sensible). |
| Xkeeper Posts: 4488/5653 |
Originally posted by /c:/dos/run so much for the hidden flag, right that allows you to keep filenames that make sense |
| FreeDOS + Posts: 988/1312 |
I have extensions on almost everything, it's good to know what kind of content it is without needing to use file(1) or something to find out what kind of data a file holds
Filenames that start with a dot, are called hidden files, because unless specified, most programs won't display them unless you tell them to display hidden files |
| Xkeeper Posts: 4486/5653 |
*.* signifying the xxxxxxxx.xxx (not nessacarily 8.3) format in FAT/NTFS, not the search method.
And as far as I can tell, very, very rarely does Unix-style files have extensions... unless the whole file IS the extension, like ".thaccess" or ".bash_rc". |
| FreeDOS + Posts: 987/1312 |
Originally posted by Xkeeper/ Uh, listing a directory provides nothing useful? I fail to see your logic. Originally posted by Xkeeper What you mean, is that Unix doesn't have any low-level filesystem structures splitting up a filename. Doesn't mean extensions don't exist. Also, when you're searching for *.*, it should be assumed that you're searching for everything with a dot (.) in the filename, whereas * means everything. |
| Xkeeper Posts: 4485/5653 |
By default, however, ls provides jack shit. dir shows enough to be useful.
And to be honest, I like the *.* format better than the unix "We have no extensions, LOL" format. |
| FreeDOS + Posts: 986/1312 |
At least, GNU ls is the one that's all colorful. ls can show a lot more information than dir, though I suppose it's because Unix filesystems are magnitudes more sophisicated than DOS. |
| Xkeeper Posts: 4480/5653 |
Personally, I like ls's coloring and DIR's output format, but whatever works. |
| This is a long thread. Click here to view it. | |
