Why doesn't grep remove lines of terminal output from find command by default? [duplicate]











up vote
0
down vote

favorite













This question already has an answer here:




  • Why doesn't grep using pipe work here?

    4 answers




I am constantly frustrated by this simple command:



find / | fgrep somestuff.ext


When I don't use sudo, I get line after line of permission denied - which is fair enough, but why isn't this output ignored when grep reads it from pipe?



Why is this form of output sent straight to the terminal window and not passed into the pipe (what I suspect must be happening) and subsequently ignored by grep, while the same lines produced by cat (say I had permission denied messages stored in a text file) would correctly go into the pipe and be ignored by my grep pattern?



I feel like there is something about the STDIN/STDOUT process I'm not understanding here










share|improve this question









New contributor




MJHd is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











marked as duplicate by muru, Jeff Schaller, mosvy, roaima, JigglyNaga 2 days ago


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.



















    up vote
    0
    down vote

    favorite













    This question already has an answer here:




    • Why doesn't grep using pipe work here?

      4 answers




    I am constantly frustrated by this simple command:



    find / | fgrep somestuff.ext


    When I don't use sudo, I get line after line of permission denied - which is fair enough, but why isn't this output ignored when grep reads it from pipe?



    Why is this form of output sent straight to the terminal window and not passed into the pipe (what I suspect must be happening) and subsequently ignored by grep, while the same lines produced by cat (say I had permission denied messages stored in a text file) would correctly go into the pipe and be ignored by my grep pattern?



    I feel like there is something about the STDIN/STDOUT process I'm not understanding here










    share|improve this question









    New contributor




    MJHd is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.











    marked as duplicate by muru, Jeff Schaller, mosvy, roaima, JigglyNaga 2 days ago


    This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

















      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite












      This question already has an answer here:




      • Why doesn't grep using pipe work here?

        4 answers




      I am constantly frustrated by this simple command:



      find / | fgrep somestuff.ext


      When I don't use sudo, I get line after line of permission denied - which is fair enough, but why isn't this output ignored when grep reads it from pipe?



      Why is this form of output sent straight to the terminal window and not passed into the pipe (what I suspect must be happening) and subsequently ignored by grep, while the same lines produced by cat (say I had permission denied messages stored in a text file) would correctly go into the pipe and be ignored by my grep pattern?



      I feel like there is something about the STDIN/STDOUT process I'm not understanding here










      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      MJHd is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.












      This question already has an answer here:




      • Why doesn't grep using pipe work here?

        4 answers




      I am constantly frustrated by this simple command:



      find / | fgrep somestuff.ext


      When I don't use sudo, I get line after line of permission denied - which is fair enough, but why isn't this output ignored when grep reads it from pipe?



      Why is this form of output sent straight to the terminal window and not passed into the pipe (what I suspect must be happening) and subsequently ignored by grep, while the same lines produced by cat (say I had permission denied messages stored in a text file) would correctly go into the pipe and be ignored by my grep pattern?



      I feel like there is something about the STDIN/STDOUT process I'm not understanding here





      This question already has an answer here:




      • Why doesn't grep using pipe work here?

        4 answers








      bash shell grep find pipe






      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      MJHd is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      MJHd is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Nov 28 at 0:55









      George Vasiliou

      5,57531028




      5,57531028






      New contributor




      MJHd is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      asked Nov 26 at 22:44









      MJHd

      62




      62




      New contributor




      MJHd is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      MJHd is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      MJHd is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.




      marked as duplicate by muru, Jeff Schaller, mosvy, roaima, JigglyNaga 2 days ago


      This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.






      marked as duplicate by muru, Jeff Schaller, mosvy, roaima, JigglyNaga 2 days ago


      This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          0
          down vote



          accepted










          While the nice answer of choroba cures your problem, the reason for the behavior you have noticed is the default pipeline behavior in bash (and i suppose in most of the shells as well).



          As described in man bash pipelines section:




          The standard output of command is connected via a pipe to the standard
          input of command2. This connection is performed
          before any redirections specified by the command (see REDIRECTION below).




          Meaning that stderr of command1 is not by default fed to command2 through the pipe but is driven to your tty, the default stderr link.



          Bash manual also says:




          If |& is used, command's standard error, in addition to its standard output, is connected to command2's standard input through the pipe; it is shorthand for 2>&1 |.




          So in your case, if you want to pipe to grep command, the find command errors which by default are sent to /dev/stderr you need to use one of these two forms:



          find / |& fgrep somestuff.ext
          find / 2>&1 | fgrep somestuff.ext


          Your queston could be also titled like "Why stderr is ignored by pipes".



          And the answer is because this is how bash and linux are made by default; to treat stdout differently than stderr, in order user to be capable to log/treat those two outputs differently.

          For example you can pipe stdout of command1 to stdin of command2 and on the same time you can send stderr of command1 to a log file using 2>errorlog.txt.



          Actually when you run a command without any redirections specified like



          find /


          It is equivallent to



          find / 1>/dev/stdout 2>/dev/stderr


          Which is finally resolved to:



          find / 1>/dev/tty1 2>/dev/tty1 #assuming that you are logged in tty1


          as can be verified by a single ls:



          ls -all /dev/st*
          lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 15 Nov 25 15:36 /dev/stderr -> /proc/self/fd/2
          lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 15 Nov 25 15:36 /dev/stdin -> /proc/self/fd/0
          lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 15 Nov 25 15:36 /dev/stdout -> /proc/self/fd/1

          ls -all /proc/self/fd/2
          lrwx------ 1 root root 64 Nov 28 02:46 /proc/self/fd/2 -> /dev/tty1

          ls -all /proc/self/fd/1
          lrwx------ 1 root root 64 Nov 28 02:46 /proc/self/fd/1 -> /dev/tty1


          If for any reason you want to "join" stdout and stderr of a command, then you need to explicitly declare your purposes to bash using |& (for pipelines) or 2>&1 (for any kind of output redirection)






          share|improve this answer




























            up vote
            7
            down vote













            The permission denied messages are not sent to stdout from find but to stderr. You can redirect the whole stderr to the bit bucket:



            find 2>/dev/null | fgrep somestuff.ext


            Also, to find the given file, you don't need any grepping:



            find . -name somestuff.ext


            to which you can still apply the 2>/dev/null.



            To only suppress the permission denied messages, you can use



            2> >(grep -v 'Permission denied' >&2)


            in bash.






            share|improve this answer























            • I see - and to further clarify, the pipe then normally connects the fd of 2 processes, in my case I'm connecting standard output produced by find / to grep, which reads from standard input. So maybe it's the need for pipe I don't get here, if grep just blindly reads standard input anyway, why do I need a pipe? Why couldn't I say: "find / & grep stuff" or "find / > grep stuff" instead? (To be clearer yet, I understand why those examples SPECIFICALLY will fail, but conceptually I still don't understand) Why do I pipe output to grep if it only cares about the global standard input anyway?
              – MJHd
              Nov 26 at 23:00










            • find . | fgrep somestuff.ext looks for somestuff.ext anywhere in the line (which means it's broken for multiline file paths) while find . -name somestuff.ext only matches the filename portion exactly. find . -path '*somestuff.ext*' would be a closer equivalent (and fix the problems with multiline file paths but introduce one with filenames containing sequences of bytes not forming valid characters).
              – Stéphane Chazelas
              Nov 26 at 23:04










            • @StéphaneChazelas: I guess .ext means extension, so searching for .ext* is doing more than they need. But the edge cases are important to consider, especially when you don't manually check the results and the script does something important to the selected files.
              – choroba
              Nov 26 at 23:09










            • @MJHd: Why you pipe output to grep is something you should know. Probably because you don't know how to process the stderr?
              – choroba
              Nov 26 at 23:09






            • 1




              Thank you so much for all the help, again, I really wasn't looking for a solution to this specific problem as I don't want a fish - I want to learn to fish. George's answer explains that it is the behavior of pipe I was misunderstanding, and how it behaves vs how I thought it was behaving... Thank's for taking the time though! Cheers :)
              – MJHd
              2 days ago


















            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            0
            down vote



            accepted










            While the nice answer of choroba cures your problem, the reason for the behavior you have noticed is the default pipeline behavior in bash (and i suppose in most of the shells as well).



            As described in man bash pipelines section:




            The standard output of command is connected via a pipe to the standard
            input of command2. This connection is performed
            before any redirections specified by the command (see REDIRECTION below).




            Meaning that stderr of command1 is not by default fed to command2 through the pipe but is driven to your tty, the default stderr link.



            Bash manual also says:




            If |& is used, command's standard error, in addition to its standard output, is connected to command2's standard input through the pipe; it is shorthand for 2>&1 |.




            So in your case, if you want to pipe to grep command, the find command errors which by default are sent to /dev/stderr you need to use one of these two forms:



            find / |& fgrep somestuff.ext
            find / 2>&1 | fgrep somestuff.ext


            Your queston could be also titled like "Why stderr is ignored by pipes".



            And the answer is because this is how bash and linux are made by default; to treat stdout differently than stderr, in order user to be capable to log/treat those two outputs differently.

            For example you can pipe stdout of command1 to stdin of command2 and on the same time you can send stderr of command1 to a log file using 2>errorlog.txt.



            Actually when you run a command without any redirections specified like



            find /


            It is equivallent to



            find / 1>/dev/stdout 2>/dev/stderr


            Which is finally resolved to:



            find / 1>/dev/tty1 2>/dev/tty1 #assuming that you are logged in tty1


            as can be verified by a single ls:



            ls -all /dev/st*
            lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 15 Nov 25 15:36 /dev/stderr -> /proc/self/fd/2
            lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 15 Nov 25 15:36 /dev/stdin -> /proc/self/fd/0
            lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 15 Nov 25 15:36 /dev/stdout -> /proc/self/fd/1

            ls -all /proc/self/fd/2
            lrwx------ 1 root root 64 Nov 28 02:46 /proc/self/fd/2 -> /dev/tty1

            ls -all /proc/self/fd/1
            lrwx------ 1 root root 64 Nov 28 02:46 /proc/self/fd/1 -> /dev/tty1


            If for any reason you want to "join" stdout and stderr of a command, then you need to explicitly declare your purposes to bash using |& (for pipelines) or 2>&1 (for any kind of output redirection)






            share|improve this answer

























              up vote
              0
              down vote



              accepted










              While the nice answer of choroba cures your problem, the reason for the behavior you have noticed is the default pipeline behavior in bash (and i suppose in most of the shells as well).



              As described in man bash pipelines section:




              The standard output of command is connected via a pipe to the standard
              input of command2. This connection is performed
              before any redirections specified by the command (see REDIRECTION below).




              Meaning that stderr of command1 is not by default fed to command2 through the pipe but is driven to your tty, the default stderr link.



              Bash manual also says:




              If |& is used, command's standard error, in addition to its standard output, is connected to command2's standard input through the pipe; it is shorthand for 2>&1 |.




              So in your case, if you want to pipe to grep command, the find command errors which by default are sent to /dev/stderr you need to use one of these two forms:



              find / |& fgrep somestuff.ext
              find / 2>&1 | fgrep somestuff.ext


              Your queston could be also titled like "Why stderr is ignored by pipes".



              And the answer is because this is how bash and linux are made by default; to treat stdout differently than stderr, in order user to be capable to log/treat those two outputs differently.

              For example you can pipe stdout of command1 to stdin of command2 and on the same time you can send stderr of command1 to a log file using 2>errorlog.txt.



              Actually when you run a command without any redirections specified like



              find /


              It is equivallent to



              find / 1>/dev/stdout 2>/dev/stderr


              Which is finally resolved to:



              find / 1>/dev/tty1 2>/dev/tty1 #assuming that you are logged in tty1


              as can be verified by a single ls:



              ls -all /dev/st*
              lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 15 Nov 25 15:36 /dev/stderr -> /proc/self/fd/2
              lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 15 Nov 25 15:36 /dev/stdin -> /proc/self/fd/0
              lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 15 Nov 25 15:36 /dev/stdout -> /proc/self/fd/1

              ls -all /proc/self/fd/2
              lrwx------ 1 root root 64 Nov 28 02:46 /proc/self/fd/2 -> /dev/tty1

              ls -all /proc/self/fd/1
              lrwx------ 1 root root 64 Nov 28 02:46 /proc/self/fd/1 -> /dev/tty1


              If for any reason you want to "join" stdout and stderr of a command, then you need to explicitly declare your purposes to bash using |& (for pipelines) or 2>&1 (for any kind of output redirection)






              share|improve this answer























                up vote
                0
                down vote



                accepted







                up vote
                0
                down vote



                accepted






                While the nice answer of choroba cures your problem, the reason for the behavior you have noticed is the default pipeline behavior in bash (and i suppose in most of the shells as well).



                As described in man bash pipelines section:




                The standard output of command is connected via a pipe to the standard
                input of command2. This connection is performed
                before any redirections specified by the command (see REDIRECTION below).




                Meaning that stderr of command1 is not by default fed to command2 through the pipe but is driven to your tty, the default stderr link.



                Bash manual also says:




                If |& is used, command's standard error, in addition to its standard output, is connected to command2's standard input through the pipe; it is shorthand for 2>&1 |.




                So in your case, if you want to pipe to grep command, the find command errors which by default are sent to /dev/stderr you need to use one of these two forms:



                find / |& fgrep somestuff.ext
                find / 2>&1 | fgrep somestuff.ext


                Your queston could be also titled like "Why stderr is ignored by pipes".



                And the answer is because this is how bash and linux are made by default; to treat stdout differently than stderr, in order user to be capable to log/treat those two outputs differently.

                For example you can pipe stdout of command1 to stdin of command2 and on the same time you can send stderr of command1 to a log file using 2>errorlog.txt.



                Actually when you run a command without any redirections specified like



                find /


                It is equivallent to



                find / 1>/dev/stdout 2>/dev/stderr


                Which is finally resolved to:



                find / 1>/dev/tty1 2>/dev/tty1 #assuming that you are logged in tty1


                as can be verified by a single ls:



                ls -all /dev/st*
                lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 15 Nov 25 15:36 /dev/stderr -> /proc/self/fd/2
                lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 15 Nov 25 15:36 /dev/stdin -> /proc/self/fd/0
                lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 15 Nov 25 15:36 /dev/stdout -> /proc/self/fd/1

                ls -all /proc/self/fd/2
                lrwx------ 1 root root 64 Nov 28 02:46 /proc/self/fd/2 -> /dev/tty1

                ls -all /proc/self/fd/1
                lrwx------ 1 root root 64 Nov 28 02:46 /proc/self/fd/1 -> /dev/tty1


                If for any reason you want to "join" stdout and stderr of a command, then you need to explicitly declare your purposes to bash using |& (for pipelines) or 2>&1 (for any kind of output redirection)






                share|improve this answer












                While the nice answer of choroba cures your problem, the reason for the behavior you have noticed is the default pipeline behavior in bash (and i suppose in most of the shells as well).



                As described in man bash pipelines section:




                The standard output of command is connected via a pipe to the standard
                input of command2. This connection is performed
                before any redirections specified by the command (see REDIRECTION below).




                Meaning that stderr of command1 is not by default fed to command2 through the pipe but is driven to your tty, the default stderr link.



                Bash manual also says:




                If |& is used, command's standard error, in addition to its standard output, is connected to command2's standard input through the pipe; it is shorthand for 2>&1 |.




                So in your case, if you want to pipe to grep command, the find command errors which by default are sent to /dev/stderr you need to use one of these two forms:



                find / |& fgrep somestuff.ext
                find / 2>&1 | fgrep somestuff.ext


                Your queston could be also titled like "Why stderr is ignored by pipes".



                And the answer is because this is how bash and linux are made by default; to treat stdout differently than stderr, in order user to be capable to log/treat those two outputs differently.

                For example you can pipe stdout of command1 to stdin of command2 and on the same time you can send stderr of command1 to a log file using 2>errorlog.txt.



                Actually when you run a command without any redirections specified like



                find /


                It is equivallent to



                find / 1>/dev/stdout 2>/dev/stderr


                Which is finally resolved to:



                find / 1>/dev/tty1 2>/dev/tty1 #assuming that you are logged in tty1


                as can be verified by a single ls:



                ls -all /dev/st*
                lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 15 Nov 25 15:36 /dev/stderr -> /proc/self/fd/2
                lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 15 Nov 25 15:36 /dev/stdin -> /proc/self/fd/0
                lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 15 Nov 25 15:36 /dev/stdout -> /proc/self/fd/1

                ls -all /proc/self/fd/2
                lrwx------ 1 root root 64 Nov 28 02:46 /proc/self/fd/2 -> /dev/tty1

                ls -all /proc/self/fd/1
                lrwx------ 1 root root 64 Nov 28 02:46 /proc/self/fd/1 -> /dev/tty1


                If for any reason you want to "join" stdout and stderr of a command, then you need to explicitly declare your purposes to bash using |& (for pipelines) or 2>&1 (for any kind of output redirection)







                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered Nov 28 at 0:48









                George Vasiliou

                5,57531028




                5,57531028
























                    up vote
                    7
                    down vote













                    The permission denied messages are not sent to stdout from find but to stderr. You can redirect the whole stderr to the bit bucket:



                    find 2>/dev/null | fgrep somestuff.ext


                    Also, to find the given file, you don't need any grepping:



                    find . -name somestuff.ext


                    to which you can still apply the 2>/dev/null.



                    To only suppress the permission denied messages, you can use



                    2> >(grep -v 'Permission denied' >&2)


                    in bash.






                    share|improve this answer























                    • I see - and to further clarify, the pipe then normally connects the fd of 2 processes, in my case I'm connecting standard output produced by find / to grep, which reads from standard input. So maybe it's the need for pipe I don't get here, if grep just blindly reads standard input anyway, why do I need a pipe? Why couldn't I say: "find / & grep stuff" or "find / > grep stuff" instead? (To be clearer yet, I understand why those examples SPECIFICALLY will fail, but conceptually I still don't understand) Why do I pipe output to grep if it only cares about the global standard input anyway?
                      – MJHd
                      Nov 26 at 23:00










                    • find . | fgrep somestuff.ext looks for somestuff.ext anywhere in the line (which means it's broken for multiline file paths) while find . -name somestuff.ext only matches the filename portion exactly. find . -path '*somestuff.ext*' would be a closer equivalent (and fix the problems with multiline file paths but introduce one with filenames containing sequences of bytes not forming valid characters).
                      – Stéphane Chazelas
                      Nov 26 at 23:04










                    • @StéphaneChazelas: I guess .ext means extension, so searching for .ext* is doing more than they need. But the edge cases are important to consider, especially when you don't manually check the results and the script does something important to the selected files.
                      – choroba
                      Nov 26 at 23:09










                    • @MJHd: Why you pipe output to grep is something you should know. Probably because you don't know how to process the stderr?
                      – choroba
                      Nov 26 at 23:09






                    • 1




                      Thank you so much for all the help, again, I really wasn't looking for a solution to this specific problem as I don't want a fish - I want to learn to fish. George's answer explains that it is the behavior of pipe I was misunderstanding, and how it behaves vs how I thought it was behaving... Thank's for taking the time though! Cheers :)
                      – MJHd
                      2 days ago















                    up vote
                    7
                    down vote













                    The permission denied messages are not sent to stdout from find but to stderr. You can redirect the whole stderr to the bit bucket:



                    find 2>/dev/null | fgrep somestuff.ext


                    Also, to find the given file, you don't need any grepping:



                    find . -name somestuff.ext


                    to which you can still apply the 2>/dev/null.



                    To only suppress the permission denied messages, you can use



                    2> >(grep -v 'Permission denied' >&2)


                    in bash.






                    share|improve this answer























                    • I see - and to further clarify, the pipe then normally connects the fd of 2 processes, in my case I'm connecting standard output produced by find / to grep, which reads from standard input. So maybe it's the need for pipe I don't get here, if grep just blindly reads standard input anyway, why do I need a pipe? Why couldn't I say: "find / & grep stuff" or "find / > grep stuff" instead? (To be clearer yet, I understand why those examples SPECIFICALLY will fail, but conceptually I still don't understand) Why do I pipe output to grep if it only cares about the global standard input anyway?
                      – MJHd
                      Nov 26 at 23:00










                    • find . | fgrep somestuff.ext looks for somestuff.ext anywhere in the line (which means it's broken for multiline file paths) while find . -name somestuff.ext only matches the filename portion exactly. find . -path '*somestuff.ext*' would be a closer equivalent (and fix the problems with multiline file paths but introduce one with filenames containing sequences of bytes not forming valid characters).
                      – Stéphane Chazelas
                      Nov 26 at 23:04










                    • @StéphaneChazelas: I guess .ext means extension, so searching for .ext* is doing more than they need. But the edge cases are important to consider, especially when you don't manually check the results and the script does something important to the selected files.
                      – choroba
                      Nov 26 at 23:09










                    • @MJHd: Why you pipe output to grep is something you should know. Probably because you don't know how to process the stderr?
                      – choroba
                      Nov 26 at 23:09






                    • 1




                      Thank you so much for all the help, again, I really wasn't looking for a solution to this specific problem as I don't want a fish - I want to learn to fish. George's answer explains that it is the behavior of pipe I was misunderstanding, and how it behaves vs how I thought it was behaving... Thank's for taking the time though! Cheers :)
                      – MJHd
                      2 days ago













                    up vote
                    7
                    down vote










                    up vote
                    7
                    down vote









                    The permission denied messages are not sent to stdout from find but to stderr. You can redirect the whole stderr to the bit bucket:



                    find 2>/dev/null | fgrep somestuff.ext


                    Also, to find the given file, you don't need any grepping:



                    find . -name somestuff.ext


                    to which you can still apply the 2>/dev/null.



                    To only suppress the permission denied messages, you can use



                    2> >(grep -v 'Permission denied' >&2)


                    in bash.






                    share|improve this answer














                    The permission denied messages are not sent to stdout from find but to stderr. You can redirect the whole stderr to the bit bucket:



                    find 2>/dev/null | fgrep somestuff.ext


                    Also, to find the given file, you don't need any grepping:



                    find . -name somestuff.ext


                    to which you can still apply the 2>/dev/null.



                    To only suppress the permission denied messages, you can use



                    2> >(grep -v 'Permission denied' >&2)


                    in bash.







                    share|improve this answer














                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer








                    edited Nov 27 at 1:35

























                    answered Nov 26 at 22:47









                    choroba

                    26k44570




                    26k44570












                    • I see - and to further clarify, the pipe then normally connects the fd of 2 processes, in my case I'm connecting standard output produced by find / to grep, which reads from standard input. So maybe it's the need for pipe I don't get here, if grep just blindly reads standard input anyway, why do I need a pipe? Why couldn't I say: "find / & grep stuff" or "find / > grep stuff" instead? (To be clearer yet, I understand why those examples SPECIFICALLY will fail, but conceptually I still don't understand) Why do I pipe output to grep if it only cares about the global standard input anyway?
                      – MJHd
                      Nov 26 at 23:00










                    • find . | fgrep somestuff.ext looks for somestuff.ext anywhere in the line (which means it's broken for multiline file paths) while find . -name somestuff.ext only matches the filename portion exactly. find . -path '*somestuff.ext*' would be a closer equivalent (and fix the problems with multiline file paths but introduce one with filenames containing sequences of bytes not forming valid characters).
                      – Stéphane Chazelas
                      Nov 26 at 23:04










                    • @StéphaneChazelas: I guess .ext means extension, so searching for .ext* is doing more than they need. But the edge cases are important to consider, especially when you don't manually check the results and the script does something important to the selected files.
                      – choroba
                      Nov 26 at 23:09










                    • @MJHd: Why you pipe output to grep is something you should know. Probably because you don't know how to process the stderr?
                      – choroba
                      Nov 26 at 23:09






                    • 1




                      Thank you so much for all the help, again, I really wasn't looking for a solution to this specific problem as I don't want a fish - I want to learn to fish. George's answer explains that it is the behavior of pipe I was misunderstanding, and how it behaves vs how I thought it was behaving... Thank's for taking the time though! Cheers :)
                      – MJHd
                      2 days ago


















                    • I see - and to further clarify, the pipe then normally connects the fd of 2 processes, in my case I'm connecting standard output produced by find / to grep, which reads from standard input. So maybe it's the need for pipe I don't get here, if grep just blindly reads standard input anyway, why do I need a pipe? Why couldn't I say: "find / & grep stuff" or "find / > grep stuff" instead? (To be clearer yet, I understand why those examples SPECIFICALLY will fail, but conceptually I still don't understand) Why do I pipe output to grep if it only cares about the global standard input anyway?
                      – MJHd
                      Nov 26 at 23:00










                    • find . | fgrep somestuff.ext looks for somestuff.ext anywhere in the line (which means it's broken for multiline file paths) while find . -name somestuff.ext only matches the filename portion exactly. find . -path '*somestuff.ext*' would be a closer equivalent (and fix the problems with multiline file paths but introduce one with filenames containing sequences of bytes not forming valid characters).
                      – Stéphane Chazelas
                      Nov 26 at 23:04










                    • @StéphaneChazelas: I guess .ext means extension, so searching for .ext* is doing more than they need. But the edge cases are important to consider, especially when you don't manually check the results and the script does something important to the selected files.
                      – choroba
                      Nov 26 at 23:09










                    • @MJHd: Why you pipe output to grep is something you should know. Probably because you don't know how to process the stderr?
                      – choroba
                      Nov 26 at 23:09






                    • 1




                      Thank you so much for all the help, again, I really wasn't looking for a solution to this specific problem as I don't want a fish - I want to learn to fish. George's answer explains that it is the behavior of pipe I was misunderstanding, and how it behaves vs how I thought it was behaving... Thank's for taking the time though! Cheers :)
                      – MJHd
                      2 days ago
















                    I see - and to further clarify, the pipe then normally connects the fd of 2 processes, in my case I'm connecting standard output produced by find / to grep, which reads from standard input. So maybe it's the need for pipe I don't get here, if grep just blindly reads standard input anyway, why do I need a pipe? Why couldn't I say: "find / & grep stuff" or "find / > grep stuff" instead? (To be clearer yet, I understand why those examples SPECIFICALLY will fail, but conceptually I still don't understand) Why do I pipe output to grep if it only cares about the global standard input anyway?
                    – MJHd
                    Nov 26 at 23:00




                    I see - and to further clarify, the pipe then normally connects the fd of 2 processes, in my case I'm connecting standard output produced by find / to grep, which reads from standard input. So maybe it's the need for pipe I don't get here, if grep just blindly reads standard input anyway, why do I need a pipe? Why couldn't I say: "find / & grep stuff" or "find / > grep stuff" instead? (To be clearer yet, I understand why those examples SPECIFICALLY will fail, but conceptually I still don't understand) Why do I pipe output to grep if it only cares about the global standard input anyway?
                    – MJHd
                    Nov 26 at 23:00












                    find . | fgrep somestuff.ext looks for somestuff.ext anywhere in the line (which means it's broken for multiline file paths) while find . -name somestuff.ext only matches the filename portion exactly. find . -path '*somestuff.ext*' would be a closer equivalent (and fix the problems with multiline file paths but introduce one with filenames containing sequences of bytes not forming valid characters).
                    – Stéphane Chazelas
                    Nov 26 at 23:04




                    find . | fgrep somestuff.ext looks for somestuff.ext anywhere in the line (which means it's broken for multiline file paths) while find . -name somestuff.ext only matches the filename portion exactly. find . -path '*somestuff.ext*' would be a closer equivalent (and fix the problems with multiline file paths but introduce one with filenames containing sequences of bytes not forming valid characters).
                    – Stéphane Chazelas
                    Nov 26 at 23:04












                    @StéphaneChazelas: I guess .ext means extension, so searching for .ext* is doing more than they need. But the edge cases are important to consider, especially when you don't manually check the results and the script does something important to the selected files.
                    – choroba
                    Nov 26 at 23:09




                    @StéphaneChazelas: I guess .ext means extension, so searching for .ext* is doing more than they need. But the edge cases are important to consider, especially when you don't manually check the results and the script does something important to the selected files.
                    – choroba
                    Nov 26 at 23:09












                    @MJHd: Why you pipe output to grep is something you should know. Probably because you don't know how to process the stderr?
                    – choroba
                    Nov 26 at 23:09




                    @MJHd: Why you pipe output to grep is something you should know. Probably because you don't know how to process the stderr?
                    – choroba
                    Nov 26 at 23:09




                    1




                    1




                    Thank you so much for all the help, again, I really wasn't looking for a solution to this specific problem as I don't want a fish - I want to learn to fish. George's answer explains that it is the behavior of pipe I was misunderstanding, and how it behaves vs how I thought it was behaving... Thank's for taking the time though! Cheers :)
                    – MJHd
                    2 days ago




                    Thank you so much for all the help, again, I really wasn't looking for a solution to this specific problem as I don't want a fish - I want to learn to fish. George's answer explains that it is the behavior of pipe I was misunderstanding, and how it behaves vs how I thought it was behaving... Thank's for taking the time though! Cheers :)
                    – MJHd
                    2 days ago



                    Popular posts from this blog

                    サソリ

                    広島県道265号伴広島線

                    Setup Asymptote in Texstudio