(15-10-2021, 02:26 AM)z3bra Wrote: That's funny to see you use tree rather than ls. isn't it too verbose when you got a lot of subdirectories ? do you pipe it to less then ?

The function I wrote defaults to depth 1 (no subdirectories), but I can call it with the option -2 to list contents of subdirectories, -3 to list content of subdirectories up to depth 3, etc. Or -0 to recursively list at infinite depth. So there's no need to pipe to less, since the default output is not recursive.

The function also has find(1) functionalities. If I give it an argument, it looks for a file named as the argument in the filesystem up to the depth I specify.

The function also lists in the long format, so I get the size of the files and their permissions.

ls -Rl and find -iname in a single command!