> the weird pipe + xargs instead of just `-exec I think that part makes sense though as it's simply the older idiom before -exec existed. (That's the reason wh

> the weird pipe + xargs instead of just `-exec I think that part makes sense though as it's simply the older idiom before -exec existed. (That's the reason why both find and xargs have specific flags related to /0-delimited filenames that are basically counterparts to each other) Also, shouldn't the two be roughly equal in efficiency? To my knowledge, xargs (without -i) does the same command aggregation that -exec ... + does. So the number of "grep" processes spawned by the two commands should be roughly the same, I think.