Today at 4:27pm, Jerry Feldman wrote:
Jerry Feldman wrote:
On Wednesday 31 August 2005 2:16 pm, Carlos E. R. wrote: [...] Yes and no. The ls problem that Albert had was not a bash problem, but was most likely an ls buffer issue.
if so, a ls > list.txt could work? No, if it is an ls problem, it is the buffering in ls. The shell does not get involved with the internals of a command. The only difference between displaying the ls output to the screen or to a file is
On Wednesday 31 August 2005 4:09 pm, jdd sur free wrote: that when displaying to a console, you have the tty driver. The only bash limit that would come into play is when while cards are expanded on the command line.
It would be interesting to see whether 'ls' fails on this huge directory when given the -U flag (don't sort).