It literally looks like a clone of fzf or sk complete with prompt and file previews. The fact that ithe article doesn't event reference the prior art is deeply concerning.
this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2025
63 points (97.0% liked)
Linux
6323 readers
245 users here now
A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system
Also check out:
Original icon base courtesy of [email protected] and The GIMP
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Eh, tried it. Doesn't seem to support regex or even wildcard matching, which is... suboptimal. The preview window also often fails to show the content of the current file correctly.
I'm with the others: fd default syntax is easier to remember.
And for the interactive search I'm using skim. With it I cd to the dir I want and Alt t to trigger fuzzy finding. There are also bindings to search for dir or in the history. The neat part is that results are inserted as is in the command line, no need to xargs or copy them. It also make the history look like I always know where the files I want are when in reality they are just fuzzy-found
So many linux posts seem to be new people getting frustrated at their lack of knowledge and trying to reinvent something that already exists. I'm looking at this thinking, why didn't they just use locate and fzf?
Sounds fantastic, but unfortunately none of the instructions for Debian-based, or the pre-compiled binary, or the building from source worked.
Also if you are looking for a replacement for find that is not a full tui then take a look at fd which works more like what the author expected from the find commad - fd <pattern>.
~~Plus, IIRC fd does breadth-first search, which leads to faster finds in the most common cases.~~
I've been corrected. fd doesn't do this; other find replacements exist that do, though.
I don't think so, where did you get that? Last I checked, they weren't interested in adding it. That's why tools like bfs exist.
Oh. I'm just straight up wrong about that; I thought I'd read that about it back when I first started using it regularly.
I'm just attributing it to some other tool. Bad info, sorry!
It's cool, thanks for correcting.
find can be a bit slow because it enumerates every directory recursively from the root you specified, but it let's you do a lot more than just search by name. locate is available on most distros and give fast results, albiet from when the index was last rebuilt (usually nightly). They both have the vital property that they output a list of files to stdout for further processing.
+1 for locate and updatedb. It works on macos too.
It's worth mentioning you can manually kick off an index build with I believe updatedb (in most cases).
Love reading about the author's struggle with find, it really resonates. I have the same terrible experience every time I try to use it.
this looks beautiful. find has always driven me a bit batty.
https://github.com/alexpasmantier/television?tab=readme-ov-file
Looks like I'm gonna give it a whirl
I always just use
find | grep -i <partial file name>
just use fd at that point
find <dir> -iname partialfilename\*
Is pretty much the "find-native" way to do the same thing
Well that's clearly worse... Why even make this comment?
Because sometimes people want to share solutions that work for them. A clunky solution that you remember is better than the optimal solution you can't access.
Why can’t I remember the find parameters?
I don't know. Perhaps write a couple of aliases?