At Thu, 5 Aug 2004 20:26:33 +0000 (UTC), "Jan Schaumann" wrote:
> 'ls -ls' makes sense.  But 'ls -lhs' doesn't show anything that 'ls -lh'
> doesn't already provide.  (At least ours doesn't.)

That's a bug.  the behaviour that seems to have been observed with GNU
ls (i.e., shows a human-readable byte count for each size) is what I'd
consider right.


cgd