ls -l not

[Keith Gabryelski]

In article <1989Oct20.124940.2899 at wash08.uucp> rae98 at wash08.UUCP
						 (Robert A. Earl) writes:
>In article <8222 at cbmvax.UUCP> ag at cbmvax.UUCP (Keith Gabryelski) writes:
>>(soft links exist on berkeley derived or sufficiently mutated SYSV
>>systems).  You can tell if a file is a soft link by doing an 'ls -l',
>>as:
>>$ ls -l /tmp/Aen.c
>>lrwxr-xr-x  1 ag              5 Oct 19 08:04 /tmp/Aen.c -> /z/unix/ag/aen.c
>Just so you know, Keith, my "sufficiently mutated SYSV system" has
>symbolic links (your 'soft links') (NCR Tower 32/650 SVR2), but the
>output of 'ls -l' does not show this.

SYSVr4's 'ls -l' output is like Berkeley's.

I bring this up because a co-worker an I were discussing the merits of
SYSVr4's ls(1) (by default) following links on 'ls foo' but not on 'ls
-l foo'.  Actually it centered mostly around 'ls -l foo' not following
links.  Which seems sort of none-intuitive...  but as you said, some
people like it.

I'd like to hear peoples feelings on this.

Pax, Keith

Ps, I vaguely remeber this being hashed out somewhere around a year
ago; reply directly to me and I will summarize.
-- 
 "It took no computation to dance to the rock 'n roll station" -- VU
  ag at cbmvax.commodore.com     Keith M. Gabryelski      ...!uunet!cbmvax!ag