Difference between ls -l and ll?

Question

I'm relatively new to programming as a whole and some tutorials have been telling me to use ls -l to look at files in a directory and others have been saying ll. I know that ls is a short list, but is there a difference between the other two?

You may want to take a look at which ll. You will probably discover that ll is actually an alias for ls -l. — HalosGhost, Jun 17 '14 at 23:04
So then what is the difference between ls any other command I put into the shell? If I type which ls I get alias ls='ls --color=auto' /bin/ls, but if I type (for example) which cd I get /usr/bin/which: no cd in (........). EDIT: I tried it again with which mkdir and I got /bin/mkdir. What is the distinction between these commands that some of them are stored(?) in /usr/bin and some are apparently not? — Jon, Jun 18 '14 at 21:45
this is an affect of your distro's default $PATH. ls is very often aliased, so your shell reports the alias (which takes precedence over the binary) and the binary's actual location (in your case, /bin/ls). If which could not find cd, then something appears terribly wrong. — HalosGhost, Jun 20 '14 at 07:30
cd is a shell builtin keyword, not a program found in a filesystem. Use type cd and type ls to see what I mean. Some commands are simply overriden by shell builtins: echo exists in /bin/echo, but in bash and in fact most of modern shells, a builtin echo function is called instead (which usually has extended features). type actually tells you which one it is. — orion, Feb 04 '15 at 10:00

score 137 · Accepted Answer · edited Aug 12 '15 at 14:15

137

On many systems, ll is an alias of ls -l:

$ type ll
ll is aliased to `ls -l'

They are the same.

edited Aug 12 '15 at 14:15

dhag

15,736
4
55
65

answered Jun 17 '14 at 22:30

cuonglm

153,898

4

ll is aliased to `ls -ltr' - I am using red hat 6 – rdp May 27 '15 at 14:51
5

in Ubuntu 14.04 ll is aliased to 'ls -alF' – Viktor Apr 12 '16 at 03:15
7

Also ls -alF in Ubuntu 12.04, 16.04, and likely many more. – Paul Nov 05 '16 at 16:58
3

For me on macOS Sierra ll is aliased to ls -lh – Zorgatone Apr 20 '17 at 12:44
1

zsh: command not found: ll :( – Harinder Jan 10 '20 at 22:33
@Harinder zsh has the shorter l – legends2k Nov 05 '20 at 13:02
I usually alias ll to ls -Ahog on Bash. It shows long listing but without the owner and group column; it additionally shows human-readable sizes (with suffixes like K, M, etc.), hidden files and directories except . and ... – legends2k Nov 05 '20 at 13:02
@legends2k still the same zsh: command not found: l – Harinder Apr 22 '21 at 18:07
RHEL8 = alias ll='ls -l --color=auto' – Metafaniel Jun 28 '23 at 23:31

score 20 · Answer 2 · answered Jun 18 '14 at 02:21

20

As noted, ll is often defined as an alias of ls -l. In fact, ls is often an alias itself:

$ which ls
alias ls='ls --color=auto'
/usr/bin/ls

The actual command is ls which above is found in /usr/bin. ll is intended as a convenience, but you cannot rely on it being defined on all *nix systems, so it is good to know what it is really doing.

answered Jun 18 '14 at 02:21

sosiouxme

453

Great answer. I can't help by add that this is one of the reasons why relying on ls in automation (especially ad-hoc one-liners) is usually a bad idea. It has several options that change its output, and many ways to specify them. With different distributions choosing different defaults, it tends to lead to headaches. – ctt Jun 18 '14 at 02:30
I haven't seen any popular distribution to alias ls to anything else than ls --color=auto. It's either that or there is no alias. – ek9 Jun 18 '14 at 07:02

score 10 · Answer 3 · edited Nov 20 '19 at 10:06

10

Ubuntu 12.04, 14.04, 16.04, 18.04:

laike9m@laike9m1:~$ type ll
ll is aliased to `ls -alF'

edited Nov 20 '19 at 10:06

Max Yudin

113

answered Sep 29 '15 at 15:36

laike9m

623

1

Also 12.04 and 16.04, but that is all I have available to test right now. – Paul Nov 05 '16 at 17:00
I can confirm also 18.04 – Max Yudin Nov 20 '19 at 09:21

score 4 · Answer 4 · edited Aug 12 '15 at 15:00

4

In most cases, ll does not work in shell scripts.

edited Aug 12 '15 at 15:00

Michael Mrozek

93,103
40
240
233

answered Jun 18 '14 at 06:58

Sreeraj

5,062

1

What happens is that typically commands like ll are really aliases, that aren't defined when running scripts. – vonbrand Jun 18 '14 at 07:57
3

Some people have the alias in the .profile, and the alias is working in an interactive shell. After debugging/testing a new script, the script suddenly fails in crontab. Cron does not read the .profile. – Walter A Jun 18 '14 at 09:49
1

This is not an answer to the question, but should be a comment instead. From my little understanding, aliases are deprecated in shell scripts. – cornflakes24 Jan 23 '16 at 20:21
I say "most" but it does not on mine, and i use ls -l – travelingbones Apr 27 '17 at 16:26

score 2 · Answer 5 · edited Mar 17 '16 at 15:14

2

ll is an alias for ls -l.

The option -l tells the command to use a long list format. It gives back several columns, not shown when the simple ls command is used. These columns include:

Permissions
Number of hardlinks
File owner
File group
File size
Modification
time
Filename

edited Mar 17 '16 at 15:14

sam

22,765

answered Mar 17 '16 at 15:07

Code_Jamer

121

score 0 · Answer 6 · answered Jun 12 '15 at 19:45

0

ll is actually aliased to `ls -l' If you run ll, then it will show you files in the shell then you to press Enter to see the next files (more.. option). If you run ls -l, then all files will be displayed at a time.

answered Jun 12 '15 at 19:45

Nainita

2,862

Difference between ls -l and ll?

6 Answers6