Re: Size for Size is too small (ls/du)

Hi > You wanted it included, not me. I'm just telling you what you should > do to make Jim happy. =) I don't WANT it to be included. It was a suggestion, nothing more, nothing less. > Some more nitpicks, I don't think this option deserves an short > option. EOT. > And maybe you could make

Re: Size for Size is too small (ls/du)

Here we go. again. You wanted it included, not me. I'm just telling you what you should do to make Jim happy. =) Some more nitpicks, I don't think this option deserves an short option. And maybe you could make the long option take an argument? I.e. something like --broader-size=12, this way

Re: Size for Size is too small (ls/du)

Hi >OK. Here we go. > > Make it an option, and it might just be usefull. Changing the default > is silly since most files tend to be far smaller than 1GB, and this > just wastes precious space on the screen. Would you like to do this? > > You could look at the some of the output formating s

Re: Size for Size is too small (ls/du)

Hi >>File-sizes get bigger. I have regularly files that are >= >>1.000.000.000 bytes. This makes ls output a bit "difficult" to read >>and the format is "jumpy" if they are mixed with files <= >>999.999.999 in size. >> >> Why not just use --human-readable

Re: Size for Size is too small (ls/du)

OK. Here we go. Make it an option, and it might just be usefull. Changing the default is silly since most files tend to be far smaller than 1GB, and this just wastes precious space on the screen. Would you like to do this? You could look at the some of the output formating switches to see ho

Re: Size for Size is too small (ls/du)

>File-sizes get bigger. I have regularly files that are >= >1.000.000.000 bytes. This makes ls output a bit "difficult" to read >and the format is "jumpy" if they are mixed with files <= >999.999.999 in size. > > Why not just use --human-readable? I would have a h

Re: Size for Size is too small (ls/du)

Hi >File-sizes get bigger. I have regularly files that are >= >1.000.000.000 bytes. This makes ls output a bit "difficult" to read >and the format is "jumpy" if they are mixed with files <= >999.999.999 in size. > > Why not just use --human-readable? I would have a hard time read

Re: Size for Size is too small (ls/du)

File-sizes get bigger. I have regularly files that are >= 1.000.000.000 bytes. This makes ls output a bit "difficult" to read and the format is "jumpy" if they are mixed with files <= 999.999.999 in size. Why not just use --human-readable? I would have a hard time reading several line