this post was submitted on 18 May 2024
296 points (95.7% liked)
linuxmemes
21222 readers
49 users here now
Hint: :q!
Sister communities:
- LemmyMemes: Memes
- LemmyShitpost: Anything and everything goes.
- RISA: Star Trek memes and shitposts
Community rules (click to expand)
1. Follow the site-wide rules
- Instance-wide TOS: https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
- Lemmy code of conduct: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html
2. Be civil
- Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
- Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
- Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
- Bigotry will not be tolerated.
- These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
3. Post Linux-related content
- Including Unix and BSD.
- Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of
sudoin Windows. - No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
4. No recent reposts
- Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.
Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
When you want to find something in a different path than your current one you have to supply it as the first argument. When you try to do
find -name foo.bar /pathit will complain that the path should be the first argument. So it knows what you're trying to do and instead of doing it it just complaints.Back in the day, find required that you added "-print" to actually print out the results in the terminal. That was bad UX, and now -print is the default. But.. following some syntax like supplying path as first argument for find is necessary to not create ambiguity in some cases, and enforcing it makes it more readable imho.
That's already the friendly variant. Traditional find has a mandatory path as first argument, so to find in the current directory you need to do
find .It also doesn't know if it really is a path - it just prints that as a likely error. You might just have messed up quoting an argument.
Nice, UX is clearly a top priority (;
I'll have to try and see if FD does the same bullshit though
I dont think it does. The thing that annoys me about fd is that it uses regex as a default for patterns while I'm used to having glob as default everywhere else.
I mean you could alias the glob option as the default but I clearly see your point about standardized default behaviour.
And if you do
find .it prepends every result with a dot.