My goal is to find all files or directories in a filesystem that start with a dot (.), for example .gnupg. So I came up with the command:

find -name '.*'

Checking on the Internet, I saw some hints saying that I should use [.]* instead as the parameter value for -name option. What is the difference between both approach, since the result looks like the same?


There's no difference at all. If you try:

$ diff <(find -name '.*') <(find -name '[.]*')

you get no output. This means that command outputs are identical. I think you're taking that "hint" out of context. The intent was probably something different.

From the find man page:

-name pattern
Base of file name (the path with the leading directories removed) matches shell pattern pattern. The metacharacters (*',?', and []') match a.' at the start of the base name (this is a change in findutils-4.2.2)

meaning that [] in the -name argument is construed as a character class. With nothing but . in it, it matches a literal . as if you didn't use the [].

|improve this answer|||||
  • The command you show is not proving anything – Bernhard Oct 23 '13 at 21:31
  • @Bernhard Please elaborate. – Joseph R. Oct 23 '13 at 21:38
  • One example can not be used as a proof. Only a counter-example can be used to disproof something. – Bernhard Oct 23 '13 at 21:43
  • 1
    @Bernhard Fair enough. Does the edit help? – Joseph R. Oct 23 '13 at 22:49

For a glob pattern, there is no difference. .* is a literal period followed by zero or more characters. [.]* is any one character inside the brackets--in this case, it has to be a literal period--followed by zero or more characters.

The similar looking regular expressions .* and [.]* are different. The first is zero or more occurrences of any single character, while the second is zero or more occurrences of a literal period. The . is a regular expression metacharacter, but not inside square brackets, where it is treated literally.

|improve this answer|||||
  • Except that, when using -name, . (outside a character class) is also a literal character not a regex metacharacter. – Joseph R. Oct 25 '13 at 0:36
  • Yes. Based on the original question, it looked like the OP was reading advice meant for regular expressions, which is why I brought them up. – chepner Oct 25 '13 at 1:09

How about


The expression expects a literal dot followed by any amount of alphabetic characters. It seemed to work for me in a quick test. You need the backslash to escapes the dot. It's usually a meta-character signifying "any character" (more or less).

My whole expression was

find ~/ -name '\.[a-z]*'

Edit: To include dot-files starting with numbers too, try '\.[a-z0-9]*'. I'm not quite sure why you can't just say '\.(.*)', but I'm sure someone has a suggestion.

|improve this answer|||||
  • All "."s are literal in a find pattern. It's not a meta-character unless you use -regex instead of -name. – jordanm Oct 23 '13 at 21:16
  • You're confusing the shell wildcard pattern syntax also used by find -name with the regex syntax of grep, sed, etc., also used by find -regex. – Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' Oct 23 '13 at 23:09

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.