Talk:Find (Unix)

message: I am interested to hear of any alternatives to find. What programs are there that solves the same problems on Unix? I am not thinking of indexing programs such as Beagle. I find finds syntax archaic. For example, I don't think find works with xattrs. 213.67.93.121 21:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: find's syntax is not "archaic".  It is idiosyncratic, powerful, and difficult to master.  Just because you haven't crested the extremely harsh learning curve yet doesn't mean it's obsolete.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.27.178.252 (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

text: With the -exec parameter you can execute an arbitrary command, so I guess it's possible to make find work with Extended file attributes, provided you have a program (as opposite to just system calls or library functions) to check them. I am not aware of any direct alternative to find, but I guess there may be some (especially some providing a GUI frontend). Tizio 12:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Ffind might be graphical alternative to find on Windows. Wkpen (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternatives to find 

message: is it possible to format the output of the -print switch for the find command? Abountu 17:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Formated printing with Find

message: *Sigh,* sometimes Wikipedia articles are context-free.  Is there a rationale for `find` having the ability to match 24-hour periods that start arbitrarily from the time it is run but not exact dates, such as "find all files modified between 9AM and 5PM on January 1 in my locale?"  What's the shortest incantation to accomplish that without resort to perl?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.212.34.122 (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  3.4 Finding exact matches for times? 

message: I removed the "Windows commands" template from the end of this article.  While Windows does have a "find" command, it is much different than the UNIX command described in this article.  The Windows "find" command (actually, it was part of MS-DOS before Windows existed) is actually more like the UNIX grep command.  And the DOS/Windows find (command) as its own article, anyway.  --Lance E Sloan (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "Windows commands" template 

message: The Search_for_a_string section says "The ... single quotes (' ') surrounding the braces ... needed to allow spaces and other special characters."
This is not technically true.  The single quotes are not needed.  The following is a Linux demonstration without single quotes surrounding the braces.
 bash-3.2# mkdir 'directory with spaces'
 bash-3.2# echo -e 'Hello world\nthis is a test' >'directory with spaces/file with spaces'
 bash-3.2# find 'directory with spaces' -type f -exec grep -l test {} \;
 directory with spaces/file with spaces
-Ben Collver  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.67.114 (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in Search_for_a_string section 

message: The Solaris version of find does not support the -path or -ipath options, and probably has a number of other differences. Considering how widely used Solaris is, it should probably be noted in the article.
Jeff The Riffer (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solaris version of find 

message: is this impossable becuse of the Halting problem.Confront (talk) 07:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  POSIX protection from infinite output 

message: I just wish this great amount of detail as at display in this article would be applied by he exact detail-oriented people in articles on social themes as well.
Or in oher words : This article here is one of those reasons why people say that Wikipedia has a HUGE bias towards tech-oriented themes, and that Wikipedia is rather driven by technology nerds than by normal people.
There are SO many articles out there in dire need of a similar level of detail as one can see in this article here - however, the "Technology Nation" just doesn't bother. The authors who put so much energy into creating an article of this incredibly high level of detail just don't bother about what's going on in the rest of the world.
No "casual" Wikipedia user will ever see these kinds of articles like this one here where the amount of detail research is astounding - and therefore, the casual" Wikipedia user will never ever notice the difference in levels of detail in "non-geekish" Wikipedia articles. There are *so* many Wikipedia articles that remain a "stub", because no-one cares to implement the same level of detail there as one can perceive here.
Of course, if it's a non-technical theme, it is of no importance, the cynic in me says.
It's time to rename Wikipedia into "Geekipedia", the cynic in me claims. Alrik Fassbauer (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This complaint is kind of silly.  The author(s) of this piece took the time to add this level of detail.  It's not their fault that authors of other articles don't take the same time with theirs. Wikipedia is your online encycopedia.  If you want it improved somewhere, go do it. Tim Bird (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  A general note on this level of detail in this article