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 136 · Accepted Answer · edited Aug 12 '15 at 14:15

136

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

15,440
4
54
65

answered Jun 17 '14 at 22:30

cuonglm

150,973
38
327
406

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
1
3
8

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

103
3

answered Sep 29 '15 at 15:36

laike9m

593
1
5
7

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

91,316
38
238
232

answered Jun 18 '14 at 06:58

Sreeraj

4,984
10
38
57

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

22,265
4
22
30

answered Mar 17 '16 at 15:07

Code_Jamer

121
2

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

2,712
12
33
50

Difference between ls -l and ll?

6 Answers6