Skip to main content
Unix & Linux

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

17
  • 10
    GNU find does not respect POSIX (or even GNU) guidelines for command line. For example, ordering of parameters, multi-character options with a single dash etc. are different than in conforming programs. Commented May 20, 2011 at 11:11
  • 3
    I know, and I can always do what I intend, one way or another. I just recently got to know ack and was wondering if there is a better find as well. Commented May 20, 2011 at 11:40
  • 2
    No. You see, I don't want a small programming language, but a simpler, more intuitive and more consistent find (even if that means the loss of some advanced functionality). When I face a task that justifies writing a program, I do. Commented May 20, 2011 at 14:28
  • 3
    @tamas I edited an hour ago and told you there's no alternative except locate. And maybe ls -R come to think of it. Other alternatives are GUI programs that emulate find. Otherwise you have to specify what you want your find alternative to do. Walk dir trees? Filter file names? Tell you which files is newer then? Commented May 20, 2011 at 17:24
  • 6
    Great question, poor answers, and even worse comments. I like how they're trying to convince you that no, really, you want to use find, even though you hate it. Commented Oct 28, 2016 at 12:19