Subject: Re: bug#10013: man ls

From: Bob Proulx <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 14:31:43 -0700

Ian Bruntlett wrote:
> I was berating an AT&Ter at an ACCU conference a long time ago. I
> said that "ls" was an example of Unix's unhelpfulness. When he told
> me that "ls" was short for "list sorted", I remembered it to this
> day.
> 
> Had a look at your man page for ls - it states:-
> 
> List  information  about  the FILEs (the current directory by default).
>        Sort entries alphabetically if none of -cftuvSUX nor --sort.
> 
> Do you think it would be a worthwhile thing to let people know
> directly that ls is short for "list sorted"?

Do you have a reference for that information?  I always thought ls
stood for LiSt directory.  The V7 source only says "list file or
directory".  The man V7 page says "For each directory argument, ls
lists the contents of the directory; for each file argument, ls
repeats its name and any other information requested."

Bob

-- 
The palest ink is better than the strongest memory.