How can I tweak the output of ls in Linux so that it looks like the output of the command dir /b /s in Windows?

dir /b /s output as follows:

C:\MinGW>dir /s /b 

5 Answers 5

find . -print

This should produce the same output as dir /s/b

  • Not quite. The paths are displayed relative to ., not /. find BACKTICKpwdBACKTICK -print would work. But that's a bit more complicated than just using ls and I don't think exact conformance to dir's output format is a strict requirement.
    – sepp2k
    Commented Jul 4, 2010 at 20:33
  • @sepp2k: Given your last sentence, I'm confused why you point out the first. Find is a generally much more useful tool than ls for cases similar to this.
    – Roger Pate
    Commented Jul 4, 2010 at 23:29
  • @jrtokarz: You don't need the dot or -print, they're the default, so just "find".
    – Roger Pate
    Commented Jul 4, 2010 at 23:30
  • @Roger: I believe the search path is required in most find versions (except GNU). Commented Jul 5, 2010 at 10:19

ls -R lists all files and subdirectories recursively. With ls -R1 you get the same, but only one file per line.

Neither makes the output look exactly like that of dir /b /s, but it should be close enough.

ls -1


ls -1d "$PWD"/*
  • /S is the dir equivalent of -R even if the OP's example output does not make that clear.
    – sepp2k
    Commented Jul 4, 2010 at 20:27
  • ls -1 does not work recursively (as required). ls -1R would work recursively, but its output will look quite different to dir /s /b (which shows the absolute paths for each file). ls -1d "${PWD}/* also misses two things: the recursion and matching normal files (your -d limits output to directories only). – Commented Jul 5, 2010 at 13:22

It depends, how hard the requirement is to get "equivalence" to dir /b /s... These ones come pretty close (they'll have no backslashes as directory separator though, and the output order will be a bit different [dir /b /s outputs 'sibling' directories first, before diving into each one to show their content]). The second one is just a fallback in case your version find doesn't default to -print action (most do though):

find $(pwd)
find $(pwd) -print

UPDATE: I had a typo in above commands originally. I typed curly brackets "{}" instead of round ones "()" how they ought to be. Thanks to grawity for spotting this.

  • 1
    It's $PWD, uppercase. Commented Jul 5, 2010 at 10:20
  • @grawity: you're right and wrong at the same time. $PWD or ${PWD} would return the content of an environment variable (the current directory). This is what you have in mind. pwd is a little commandline utility ('print working directory') which also outputs the current directory path. Using it as ${pwd} or as `pwd` would return the result of that command, which in this case has the same effect as using $PWD. So my version will definitely work, and your comment was not appropriate in this context. Commented Jul 5, 2010 at 10:33
  • 2
    Correction: $(pwd) returns output of pwd, and ${pwd} returns the value of $pwd. Notice the difference in brackets. Commented Jul 5, 2010 at 10:43
  • @grawity: D'oh! You're right of course. (I do it right whenever I need to do it in a shell. Heaven knows why I did it wrong when typing it into the text edit field....) I'll correct my comments so it will not confuse other readers. Commented Jul 5, 2010 at 13:13

this seems to work, from the command line:

find|awk "/^\.\//{print\"$PWD\"substr(\$0,2)}"
  • Why would you not just use -printf instead? Commented Oct 30, 2010 at 10:13
  • Because I'm new and do things the hard way. I've added this line to my .bashrc which seems to do the trick: alias lsb='find . -printf "$PWD/%P\n"' Is this what you mean? Thanks for the tip!
    – erik
    Commented Oct 30, 2010 at 20:02

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .