What do you think?
Any thoughts on this command? Does it work on your machine? Can you do the same thing with only 14 characters?
You must be signed in to comment.
What's this?
commandlinefu.com is the place to record those command-line gems that you return to again and again. That way others can gain from your CLI wisdom and you from theirs too. All commands can be commented on, discussed and voted up or down.
Similar Commands
Stay in the loop…
- Follow the Tweets.
-
Every new command is wrapped in a tweet and posted to Twitter. Following the stream is a great way of staying abreast of the latest commands. For the more discerning, there are Twitter accounts for commands that get a minimum of 3 and 10 votes - that way only the great commands get tweeted.
» http://twitter.com/commandlinefu
» http://twitter.com/commandlinefu3
» http://twitter.com/commandlinefu10 - Subscribe to the feeds.
-
Use your favourite RSS aggregator to stay in touch with the latest commands. There are feeds mirroring the 3 Twitter streams as well as for virtually every other subset (users, tags, functions,…):
Subscribe to the feed for:
- » all commands
- » commands with 3 up-votes (commandlinefu3)
- » commands with 10 up-votes (commandlinefu10)
for n in `seq 1 1 1000`; do touch $n.svn; donetime find . -name "*\.svn" -exec echo {} \; 1>/dev/nullreal 0m2.629s user 0m0.970s sys 0m1.655stime find . -name "*\.svn" -exec echo {} + 1>/dev/nullreal 0m0.020s user 0m0.012s sys 0m0.007sfind . -name ".svn" -type d | xargs rm -rf-> -type d tells find to only find dirs -> xargs starts onyl one rm subprocess and not one rm subprocess for each found dir like find's exec option does. So it is much more efficient.find . -depth -type d -name .svn -exec rm {} \;This will prevent errors from find trying to descend into directories that it's just deleted.