~
... or ls not properly displaying them in some cases.
~
I got this compressed file that seems to be the metadata snapshot of
a file system you get by running:
~
ls -lR
~
but not all timestamps are formatted the same. You get them as, say,
Mar 24 2004, but also as Dec 26 09:55 (without the
On Sun, 02 Jan 2011 12:41:38 +, Albretch Mueller wrote:
~
... or ls not properly displaying them in some cases.
~
I got this compressed file that seems to be the metadata snapshot of
a file system you get by running:
~
ls -lR
~
but not all timestamps are formatted the same. You
Albretch Mueller lbrt...@gmail.com wrote:
~
... or ls not properly displaying them in some cases.
~
^ I don’t even want to know what these are doing here…
but not all timestamps are formatted the same. You get them as, say,
Mar 24 2004, but also as Dec 26 09:55 (without the year!) and they
are
Albretch Mueller wrote:
~
... or ls not properly displaying them in some cases.
~
I got this compressed file that seems to be the metadata snapshot of
a file system you get by running:
~
ls -lR
~
but not all timestamps are formatted the same. You get them as, say,
Mar 24 2004, but
Albretch Mueller wrote:
but not all timestamps are formatted the same. You get them as, say,
Mar 24 2004, but also as Dec 26 09:55 (without the year!) and they
are (or seem to be) files in the same directory
~
Why would that be?
Because the original Unix ls command many years ago did this
Chris Jackson c.jack...@shadowcat.co.uk writes:
Albretch Mueller wrote:
~
... or ls not properly displaying them in some cases.
~
I got this compressed file that seems to be the metadata snapshot of
a file system you get by running:
~
ls -lR
~
but not all timestamps are formatted
In aanlktins-qfs4h+lazyfnjmnb9fxrgaqctympkvz0...@mail.gmail.com, Albretch
Mueller wrote:
ls -lR
but not all timestamps are formatted the same. You get them as, say,
Mar 24 2004, but also as Dec 26 09:55 (without the year!) and they
are (or seem to be) files in the same directory
Why would
7 matches
Mail list logo
