From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sat Nov  1 10:28:52 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA00723
          for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 10:28:52 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers)
Received: from heron.doc.ic.ac.uk (wNVPHrQHPsFC7rzqQyy2F+dfENNOjuWl@heron.doc.ic.ac.uk [146.169.2.31])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA00718
          for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 10:28:49 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from njs3@doc.ic.ac.uk)
Received: from oak67.doc.ic.ac.uk [146.169.33.67] ([sg08ltvdpmRF8uaXOA1UdnIovPX2oFXy])
	by heron.doc.ic.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 1.62 #3)
	id 0xRiI7-0000Nm-00; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 18:28:59 +0000
Received: from njs3 by oak67.doc.ic.ac.uk with local (Exim 1.62 #3)
	id 0xRiHi-0004IG-00; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 18:28:34 +0000
From: njs3@doc.ic.ac.uk (Niall Smart)
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 18:28:34 +0000
In-Reply-To: Brandon Gillespie <brandon@roguetrader.com>
       "Re: Suggested addition to /etc/security" (Nov  1, 11:11am)
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92)
To: Brandon Gillespie <brandon@roguetrader.com>,
        Niall Smart <njs3@doc.ic.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Suggested addition to /etc/security
Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Message-Id: <E0xRiHi-0004IG-00@oak67.doc.ic.ac.uk>
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

On Nov 1, 11:11am, Brandon Gillespie wrote:
> > > > > find / -nouser -nogroup
> > > > Shouldn't this be "find / -nouser -o -nogroup -print"?
> > > Yeah, or even better:
> > > 
> > > files=`find / -nouser -o -nogroup -print`
> > > ls -ldF $files
> > > 
> > > (this looks better than find / -nouser -o -nogroup -exec ls -ldF {} \;)
> > 
> > Looks better?  They should produce identical output. "find / -nouser -o
> > -nogroup -print | xargs -n 30" is more efficient btw :)) however
> > using -exec with find is othe only one that works with filenames with
> > embedded spaces.
> 
> No, it does not look the same.  'ls' will columnize the output to fit
> every file its listing--but it will vary the column widths for each
> execution.

Ahh yes, I had not run it over enough files to see more than one execution
of ls.  Of course, you could pipe it through awk to format the columns
if presentation and speed of execution were important :) Given that
the number of files without a group or user is probably going to be
small the original way which you suggested, with the addition of the
'-o' argument to find seems best now.

Niall