listing dirs on the commandline -- not so simple in linux

[miriam_e]

I was writing a quick little script today... well, at least it started out as a quick little script, but it needed to be able to read the directory names from an arbitrary place in my file structure. I thought, sure, the ls command is bound to have an option to restrict output to only directories, right? Wrong. This turned into quite a chase.

After spending too long experimenting with various things I checked the net to see if anybody else knew the answer to what I was starting to think I was too stupid to see. It seems many other people have come up against this deficiency in the ls command. There have been a lot of suggestions to get around it. The most common is:
    ls -d */
but that has three failings. It prints the entire path, lists the directories with a trailing slash (the -d option), and doesn't see hidden dirs (those that begin with a dot). It is easy to use sed to get rid of the trailing slash:
    ls -d1 */ | sed 's/\(.*\)./\1/g'
and a little more fussing with sed can get rid of the path, but I can't find any way to list the hidden dirs along with the normal ones.

Another common solution is to use the find command:
    find . -maxdepth 1 -type d
This works but puts all the output on one line, precedes each file with its path, the first line is always the name of the directory being listed, and the file list is all jumbled up. I can use the -printf option of file to fix the path problem and to put each name on its own line, getting rid of the first line is just a matter of piping through the tail command, and pipe through the sort command to organise the result.
    find . -maxdepth 1 -type d -printf '%f\n' | tail -n+2 | sort

That took a lot more hassling than I expected. Weird. You'd think that the ls command would have something that basic. The Amiga does:
    dir . dirs
Simple, easy to use and understand.

GNU dir command has a -d option supposedly to display only directories, but it doesn't seem to work properly.

Additional:
I don't seem to be able to leave it alone. Here is a weird solution that I never would have thought of: use the bash shell's wildcard expansion to do it.
    echo */
This has a couple of shortcomings, but as always, sed can help:
    cd "$address" ; echo */ | sed 's/\/ */\n/g'
We cd to the directory that we want to list from. The echo gets expanded to everything there that ends in a slash (all the directories), then sed looks for a slash followed by none or multiple spaces (can't just be a space because the very last slash doesn't have a space) and replaces them with a newline.

I'm astounded that linux doesn't have an easy solution to this. Even crappy old MSDOS can do it.
    DIR /A:D /B /O:N
Not very readable, but at least it does it.

Additional:
I have a commandline program called tree though I can't remember where I got it. I don't think it is standard on linux distros, but it has a lot of nice options, including the ability to print out a list of directories. It has one tiny failing, in that it begins the list with the name of the containing directory, but as before we can simply snip that off with tail:
    tree -ad -L 1 -i "$address" | tail -n+2

Nice.

Found where I got it. http://mama.indstate.edu/users/ice/tree/

It was written by Steve Baker (ice@mama.indstate.edu) with HTML output capability Francesc Rocher (rocher@econ.udg.es) and character sets by Kyosuke Tokoro (NBG01720@nifty.ne.jp)

Comments

[twwells]

I think the distinction you're trying to make is between values that are means to an end and those that are not. Most values are means to an end. I don't buy food "just because"; I buy it so that I can eat it. Food is a value to me because it enables me to eat. Happiness, as you see it, is different from food, because you don't seek out happiness for any particular purpose; you experience happiness directly as valuable and so do not need any other end to justify seeking it out. Is that correct? (I should note that I don't see happiness as an end in itself. But that's whole 'nother discussion. :))

Though there are serious problems with the standard cosmologies, the problems you have with them are not among those serious problems. But to explain why your objections are invalid, I will have to use some math. Analogies won't do; they can only convey flavor without substance.

Science is full of good models, QM and Boyle's law among them. Science has since successfully explained why Boyle's law works but has yet to explain QM. It sure would be nice to see that explanation....

It's rather frustrating to know that I'm right at the cusp—were I even a decade younger it's a virtual certainty that I would be able to surf the wave of ever improving life extension techniques and thereby not have to expire of old age. Ah well, reality is.

I think you've got "True Names" mixed up with another story. It's worth a read, not just for the story, but for its historical value.

I don't know enough about scientology to know whether its "aliens" are merely supernatural spirits in disguise. And, frankly, I'd rather spend my time cleaning a cesspool than look into the matter. I merely give them the benefit of the doubt (as silly as that may be) by assuming that they're not supernatural.

It turns out that the video programs you mentioned are all ported to FreeBSD. I was able to download them from a standard location. However, I'm an untrusting soul and so I've got to figure out a way to run those programs without giving them a chance to infect my system.

[miriam_e]

Yep, you understand correctly what I mean about intrinic values as being an end to themselves. Of course we can get into twisty discussions of whether, for instance the pleasure of eating food is an end in itself or whether it serves survival. That starts to get complicated depending on how you want to view things, and I do want to write a piece on this topic later -- I've been putting it off for some time now... just like completing the final chapter of my story. Gah!! I am such a procrastinator!

Yes. I too feel the frustration of likely being at the cusp of potential immortality. All we can hope is that humanity progresses, preferably faster than at present and that the demons of superstition are dispelled soon. On both points I'm hopeful, but somewhat pessimistic.

Okie dokie. I found True Names among my books and took a brief look at it. I no longer think I've read it so have added it to my enormous to-read stack. It occurs to me that I may have been mixing it up with a vaguely recalled novel about VR by Ben Bova.

...rather spend my time cleaning a cesspool than look into [scientology]...

heheheh :D Yes. Some time back I started reading, with mounting annoyance and impatience, the story of Xenu that the scientologist suckers swallow. I couldn't read the whole thing. It was such a dopey fantasy.

[twwells]

It might not be a good idea to call values that are ends in themselves "intrinsic", as that word generally has a different meaning. Head over to The Free Dictionary to see what I mean.

As for whether happiness is a final value or a means to survival, that depends on how one chooses. Some will decide to make happiness their final goal; others will decide to seek it as a means to an end. I'm in a third camp: One should not pursue happiness as such. Rather, one should pursue certain other values and one's happiness will be one signal of one's success at that pursuit.

The main hope for those of us on the cusp is that the growth of knowledge is at least exponential. Then again, what with government meddling in the biological sciences, there's a damned good chance that important research will be stifled by religiously inspired "ethics". i have little hope that people will abandon that idiocy.

Ah, Ben Bova. He's OK but he writes too mainstream-like for me.