Kyle <[email protected]> writes:
> Have to admit, when I read Daniel's response telling me to use "find",
> I cringed. All my experiences with "find" have been very
> tortoise-like. But that command came back instantaneously and did the
> trick.
Heh. I can't blame you: find is probably the most awful of the standard
Unix commands, not least because whoever wrote it carefully set out to
design the most user-confusing interface ever.
It *looks* like find takes a set of arguments, just like any other Unix
command, given they all start with a '-', eh?
Don't be fooled, though. find(1) actually takes a description, written
in a mini-language, that details what to find and what to do when you
get there.
Ignore the dash and think about it being a language, just like shell,
and things become clearer, because now it makes *sense* that the
arguments have different meanings in different orders.
Unix: proof that just being old, and standard, doesn't make it sane.
Regards,
Daniel
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
