Am I missing something? What's wrong with:
$ ls *5*
The find command is more powerful (descending into subdirs, etc.), but the original example in the link only specified the current directory.
$ ls *5*
The find command is more powerful (descending into subdirs, etc.), but the original example in the link only specified the current directory.
ls *5*
New users should be taught find(1) because it always works.
However, in the example in the article, he was using "ls" piped to "grep" in order to find all files with a 5 in the name. That would suffer from the same consequences you mentioned, on such systems, and is inefficient and verbose.
Note, I agree with your advice to teach "find" (and "xargs") to users.
ls | grep 5
ls *5*
I'm actually not a fan of xargs. It's more unixy, but somehow I find its options hard to remember. Off the top of my head I find it easier to do
find -exec blah {} + $ ls -d *5*