Possible versions of ls [closed]
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
I'd like to know the possible versions of ls that exist and how they differ from one another.
I am actually working on man page of ls but I'm not getting the right results even though the options are correct so I'm thinking maybe the version of ls is the issue here.
linux ls
edited Mar 23 at 14:48
Jeff Schaller
31.2k846105
asked Mar 23 at 12:29
kiel28
61
closed as too broad by Stéphane Chazelas, Kusalananda, Christopher, αғsýιη, Jeff Schaller Mar 23 at 14:48
Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
add a comment |Â
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
I'd like to know the possible versions of ls that exist and how they differ from one another.
I am actually working on man page of ls but I'm not getting the right results even though the options are correct so I'm thinking maybe the version of ls is the issue here.
linux ls
edited Mar 23 at 14:48
Jeff Schaller
31.2k846105
asked Mar 23 at 12:29
kiel28
61
closed as too broad by Stéphane Chazelas, Kusalananda, Christopher, αғsýιη, Jeff Schaller Mar 23 at 14:48
Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
2
There will be hundreds of implementations (some sharing some ancestry) and hundreds of versions of each. Some implementations are portable ones and their behaviour may vary depending on what system they are built on and the build-time options. That's too broad a question.
– Stéphane Chazelas
Mar 23 at 12:34
usewhich lsorwhereis lsto find your version? usels --versionto see your version.
– Archemar
Mar 23 at 13:00
add a comment |Â
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
I'd like to know the possible versions of ls that exist and how they differ from one another.
I am actually working on man page of ls but I'm not getting the right results even though the options are correct so I'm thinking maybe the version of ls is the issue here.
linux ls
edited Mar 23 at 14:48
Jeff Schaller
31.2k846105
asked Mar 23 at 12:29
kiel28
61
I'd like to know the possible versions of ls that exist and how they differ from one another.
I am actually working on man page of ls but I'm not getting the right results even though the options are correct so I'm thinking maybe the version of ls is the issue here.
linux ls
edited Mar 23 at 14:48
Jeff Schaller
31.2k846105
asked Mar 23 at 12:29
kiel28
61
edited Mar 23 at 14:48
Jeff Schaller
31.2k846105
edited Mar 23 at 14:48
Jeff Schaller
31.2k846105
edited Mar 23 at 14:48
Jeff Schaller
31.2k846105
31.2k846105
asked Mar 23 at 12:29
kiel28
61
asked Mar 23 at 12:29
kiel28
61
asked Mar 23 at 12:29
kiel28
61
61
closed as too broad by Stéphane Chazelas, Kusalananda, Christopher, αғsýιη, Jeff Schaller Mar 23 at 14:48
Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
closed as too broad by Stéphane Chazelas, Kusalananda, Christopher, αғsýιη, Jeff Schaller Mar 23 at 14:48
Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
2
There will be hundreds of implementations (some sharing some ancestry) and hundreds of versions of each. Some implementations are portable ones and their behaviour may vary depending on what system they are built on and the build-time options. That's too broad a question.
– Stéphane Chazelas
Mar 23 at 12:34
usewhich lsorwhereis lsto find your version? usels --versionto see your version.
– Archemar
Mar 23 at 13:00
add a comment |Â
2
There will be hundreds of implementations (some sharing some ancestry) and hundreds of versions of each. Some implementations are portable ones and their behaviour may vary depending on what system they are built on and the build-time options. That's too broad a question.
– Stéphane Chazelas
Mar 23 at 12:34
usewhich lsorwhereis lsto find your version? usels --versionto see your version.
– Archemar
Mar 23 at 13:00
2
2
There will be hundreds of implementations (some sharing some ancestry) and hundreds of versions of each. Some implementations are portable ones and their behaviour may vary depending on what system they are built on and the build-time options. That's too broad a question.
– Stéphane Chazelas
Mar 23 at 12:34
There will be hundreds of implementations (some sharing some ancestry) and hundreds of versions of each. Some implementations are portable ones and their behaviour may vary depending on what system they are built on and the build-time options. That's too broad a question.
– Stéphane Chazelas
Mar 23 at 12:34
use
which ls or whereis ls to find your version? use ls --version to see your version.– Archemar
Mar 23 at 13:00
use
which ls or whereis ls to find your version? use ls --version to see your version.– Archemar
Mar 23 at 13:00
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
Just curious why you are asking. If ls is behaving differently it could be due to an alias. For example, I type:
$ which ls
...and I get:
alias ls='ls --color=auto'
edited Mar 23 at 13:01
Archemar
18.9k93366
answered Mar 23 at 13:00
Angela Johnson
211
That's because you have an alias for yourlsin your~/.bashrc. Remove/comment the alias andsource ~/.bashrcand it will work.
– 3nrique0
Mar 23 at 14:29
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
The manpage of ls should reflect the version of the binary installed in your system.
If it behaves differently, it's probably because of an alias. Type alias and see if there's an alias that references ls. If there is, you can run the non-aliased version of ls either via
ls
or by specifying the full path to the command, e.g.
/usr/bin/ls
You will find the full path via the command whereis ls.
answered Mar 23 at 13:12
dr01
15.3k114768
Of course, on systems which have/usr/bin/ls,/usr/ucb/ls,/usr/xpg4/bin/ls, and/usr/xpg6/bin/lsthere is no "the"lsprogram. Although such systems do tend to have one manual page for all of those programs. But that manual page still does not cover/opt/sfw/bin/gls(from a CD of additional utilities provided by the operating system vendor) and/opt/csw/bin/lsand/usr/local/bin/ls(from WWW sites). (-:
– JdeBP
Mar 23 at 19:01
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
Just curious why you are asking. If ls is behaving differently it could be due to an alias. For example, I type:
$ which ls
...and I get:
alias ls='ls --color=auto'
edited Mar 23 at 13:01
Archemar
18.9k93366
answered Mar 23 at 13:00
Angela Johnson
211
That's because you have an alias for yourlsin your~/.bashrc. Remove/comment the alias andsource ~/.bashrcand it will work.
– 3nrique0
Mar 23 at 14:29
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Just curious why you are asking. If ls is behaving differently it could be due to an alias. For example, I type:
$ which ls
...and I get:
alias ls='ls --color=auto'
edited Mar 23 at 13:01
Archemar
18.9k93366
answered Mar 23 at 13:00
Angela Johnson
211
That's because you have an alias for yourlsin your~/.bashrc. Remove/comment the alias andsource ~/.bashrcand it will work.
– 3nrique0
Mar 23 at 14:29
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Just curious why you are asking. If ls is behaving differently it could be due to an alias. For example, I type:
$ which ls
...and I get:
alias ls='ls --color=auto'
edited Mar 23 at 13:01
Archemar
18.9k93366
answered Mar 23 at 13:00
Angela Johnson
211
Just curious why you are asking. If ls is behaving differently it could be due to an alias. For example, I type:
$ which ls
...and I get:
alias ls='ls --color=auto'
edited Mar 23 at 13:01
Archemar
18.9k93366
answered Mar 23 at 13:00
Angela Johnson
211
edited Mar 23 at 13:01
Archemar
18.9k93366
edited Mar 23 at 13:01
Archemar
18.9k93366
edited Mar 23 at 13:01
Archemar
18.9k93366
18.9k93366
answered Mar 23 at 13:00
Angela Johnson
211
answered Mar 23 at 13:00
Angela Johnson
211
answered Mar 23 at 13:00
Angela Johnson
211
211
That's because you have an alias for yourlsin your~/.bashrc. Remove/comment the alias andsource ~/.bashrcand it will work.
– 3nrique0
Mar 23 at 14:29
add a comment |Â
That's because you have an alias for yourlsin your~/.bashrc. Remove/comment the alias andsource ~/.bashrcand it will work.
– 3nrique0
Mar 23 at 14:29
That's because you have an alias for your
ls in your ~/.bashrc. Remove/comment the alias and source ~/.bashrc and it will work.– 3nrique0
Mar 23 at 14:29
That's because you have an alias for your
ls in your ~/.bashrc. Remove/comment the alias and source ~/.bashrc and it will work.– 3nrique0
Mar 23 at 14:29
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
The manpage of ls should reflect the version of the binary installed in your system.
If it behaves differently, it's probably because of an alias. Type alias and see if there's an alias that references ls. If there is, you can run the non-aliased version of ls either via
ls
or by specifying the full path to the command, e.g.
/usr/bin/ls
You will find the full path via the command whereis ls.
answered Mar 23 at 13:12
dr01
15.3k114768
Of course, on systems which have/usr/bin/ls,/usr/ucb/ls,/usr/xpg4/bin/ls, and/usr/xpg6/bin/lsthere is no "the"lsprogram. Although such systems do tend to have one manual page for all of those programs. But that manual page still does not cover/opt/sfw/bin/gls(from a CD of additional utilities provided by the operating system vendor) and/opt/csw/bin/lsand/usr/local/bin/ls(from WWW sites). (-:
– JdeBP
Mar 23 at 19:01
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
The manpage of ls should reflect the version of the binary installed in your system.
If it behaves differently, it's probably because of an alias. Type alias and see if there's an alias that references ls. If there is, you can run the non-aliased version of ls either via
ls
or by specifying the full path to the command, e.g.
/usr/bin/ls
You will find the full path via the command whereis ls.
answered Mar 23 at 13:12
dr01
15.3k114768
Of course, on systems which have/usr/bin/ls,/usr/ucb/ls,/usr/xpg4/bin/ls, and/usr/xpg6/bin/lsthere is no "the"lsprogram. Although such systems do tend to have one manual page for all of those programs. But that manual page still does not cover/opt/sfw/bin/gls(from a CD of additional utilities provided by the operating system vendor) and/opt/csw/bin/lsand/usr/local/bin/ls(from WWW sites). (-:
– JdeBP
Mar 23 at 19:01
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
The manpage of ls should reflect the version of the binary installed in your system.
If it behaves differently, it's probably because of an alias. Type alias and see if there's an alias that references ls. If there is, you can run the non-aliased version of ls either via
ls
or by specifying the full path to the command, e.g.
/usr/bin/ls
You will find the full path via the command whereis ls.
answered Mar 23 at 13:12
dr01
15.3k114768
The manpage of ls should reflect the version of the binary installed in your system.
If it behaves differently, it's probably because of an alias. Type alias and see if there's an alias that references ls. If there is, you can run the non-aliased version of ls either via
ls
or by specifying the full path to the command, e.g.
/usr/bin/ls
You will find the full path via the command whereis ls.
answered Mar 23 at 13:12
dr01
15.3k114768
answered Mar 23 at 13:12
dr01
15.3k114768
answered Mar 23 at 13:12
dr01
15.3k114768
answered Mar 23 at 13:12
dr01
15.3k114768
15.3k114768
Of course, on systems which have/usr/bin/ls,/usr/ucb/ls,/usr/xpg4/bin/ls, and/usr/xpg6/bin/lsthere is no "the"lsprogram. Although such systems do tend to have one manual page for all of those programs. But that manual page still does not cover/opt/sfw/bin/gls(from a CD of additional utilities provided by the operating system vendor) and/opt/csw/bin/lsand/usr/local/bin/ls(from WWW sites). (-:
– JdeBP
Mar 23 at 19:01
add a comment |Â
Of course, on systems which have/usr/bin/ls,/usr/ucb/ls,/usr/xpg4/bin/ls, and/usr/xpg6/bin/lsthere is no "the"lsprogram. Although such systems do tend to have one manual page for all of those programs. But that manual page still does not cover/opt/sfw/bin/gls(from a CD of additional utilities provided by the operating system vendor) and/opt/csw/bin/lsand/usr/local/bin/ls(from WWW sites). (-:
– JdeBP
Mar 23 at 19:01
Of course, on systems which have
/usr/bin/ls, /usr/ucb/ls, /usr/xpg4/bin/ls, and /usr/xpg6/bin/ls there is no "the" ls program. Although such systems do tend to have one manual page for all of those programs. But that manual page still does not cover /opt/sfw/bin/gls (from a CD of additional utilities provided by the operating system vendor) and /opt/csw/bin/ls and /usr/local/bin/ls (from WWW sites). (-:– JdeBP
Mar 23 at 19:01
Of course, on systems which have
/usr/bin/ls, /usr/ucb/ls, /usr/xpg4/bin/ls, and /usr/xpg6/bin/ls there is no "the" ls program. Although such systems do tend to have one manual page for all of those programs. But that manual page still does not cover /opt/sfw/bin/gls (from a CD of additional utilities provided by the operating system vendor) and /opt/csw/bin/ls and /usr/local/bin/ls (from WWW sites). (-:– JdeBP
Mar 23 at 19:01
add a comment |Â
2
There will be hundreds of implementations (some sharing some ancestry) and hundreds of versions of each. Some implementations are portable ones and their behaviour may vary depending on what system they are built on and the build-time options. That's too broad a question.
– Stéphane Chazelas
Mar 23 at 12:34
use
which lsorwhereis lsto find your version? usels --versionto see your version.– Archemar
Mar 23 at 13:00