Thanks Bob, `du -hd1` is what I was searching for.

Пн, 22 черв. 2015 о 09:41 Bob Proulx <[email protected]> пише:

> Yurii Kolesnykov wrote:
> > By default du doesn't show disk usage of hidden files/folders.
>
> What?  What makes you think it does not?  The du command does not
> treat hidden files or directories special in any way.  They are the
> same as any other file.
>
> > There is a workaround for this as answered in this question
> >
> http://askubuntu.com/questions/356902/why-doesnt-this-show-the-hidden-files-folders
>
> I am often amazed at the lengths people will go to fight against the
> shell.  This is another good example.  That question is concerning
> someone who explicitly is avoiding hidden files.  They are using a
> shell file glob ./* which explicitly avoids matching hidden files.
> And then complaining that they are not seeing hidden files!  The
> insanity of it!
>
> You might want to look at this FAQ:
>
>
> https://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/faq/coreutils-faq.html#ls-_002da-_002a-does-not-list-dot-files
>
> It explains file globbing in more detail.  In summary the shell is
> expanding the shell file globs first before invoking du.  The du
> command has no knowledge of the '*' shell metacharacters at all.
>
> When someone gives 'du' a file glob such as "./*" then the shell
> expands the file glob to match files in the current directory and then
> invokes du with the result.  Use echo to see what du is seeing.  And
> at that point you will see that du was invoked with a list of files
> and the list of files explicitly did not include any hidden files.
>
>   echo du ./*
>
> If you want to list all of the files in the current directory then
> either use '.' or don't give it any file arguments at all.  Also you
> may want to use the -d, --max-depth=N option.
>
> Try this:
>
>   du -hd1
>
> > But this command is so weird, so I can manage to remember it. So I
> created
> > alias, but while I do so I thought that it will be good to have such
> > option, for example '--all-flle-names'.
>
> Such a thing is not needed.
>
> Bob
>
>

Reply via email to