Numpty question - why did this happen? (mv command)

Feeling a little sheepish here. I don't consider myself to be a complete Linux newbie (I used Unix based machines as long ago as 1991), but I've clearly got very very rusty!

I wanted to move a file (using terminal) from one directory to another (from Documents to Documents\Videos actually).

Every time I issued "mv Filename.mpg \Videos\Filename.mpg" it didn't move it, instead it renamed the existing file as "VideosFilename.mpg".

Realising I used the wrong command, I foolishly (as it turned out) typed "mv Filename.mpg ..\Videos\Filename.mpg". The file disappeared (!) from the Documents directory, but hasn't reappeared anywhere else! Now, I know I got it wrong. Presumably a combination of using backslashes instead of forward slashes, plus incorrect use of the parent directory (..). But can someone explain why it appears to have deleted the file completely?

(And presumably the right syntax was "mv Filename.mpg ~/Videos/Filename.mpg"?

Matt

 

The file is probably still there. "ls" hides filenames beginning with "." by default. Try:

ls -ld .*

 

exeample

i wanna move pic to other place

Code:

sudo mv /home/user/home_internet_wallpaper.jpg /opt/xandros/share/AsusLauncher

Code:

mv myfile mynewfilename    renames a file
mv myfile otherfilename    renames a file and deletes the existing file "myfile"
mv myfile /myfile          moves 'myfile' from the current directory to the root directory
mv myfile dir/myfile       moves 'myfile' to 'dir/myfile' relative to the current directory
mv myfile dir              same as the previous command (the filename is implied to be the same)
mv myfile dir/myfile2      moves 'myfile' to dir and renames it to 'myfile2'
mv foo bar baz dir         moves multiple files to directory dir
mv --help                  shows a very concise help about the syntax of the command
man mv                     prints an extensive user manual for 'mv' in the terminal

 

Fab. ls -ld .* revealed all. Now properly renamed and moved!

Matt