[nycbug-talk] Safety Expansion for FreeBSD rm(1)
jonathan at kc8onw.net
Mon Oct 1 22:43:22 EDT 2007
Jesse Callaway wrote:
> you know, since I was the first to bite... I'll have to say that I'm
> the first to regret what I said. Afterthought is always good. Changing
> your mind is better.
> This is a good patch. Why not check ~/.rm? What's the harm? I was
> wrong. It won't break any scripts at all. It just makes the system
> more useable and in a friendly way. This is an improvement. And
> furthermore, it won't slow down anything if implemented in a halfway
> decent manner.
I have to disagree...
How does it actually make the system "more" usable?
It may not slow the system down much but little bits add up and as
noted in another email if ~ is a remote file system that really adds to
the potential performance hit
Being a person that uses Windows and FreeBSD both one of the things
I like about BSD is the fact that it doesn't always say "are you sure"
every time you try to do something. Yes, I've shot myself in the foot a
few times with BSD but then I have with Windows too and if it's easier
to do on BSD I still think it's made me a better admin in some ways.
As several people have noted a shell wrapper or alias can
accomplish the same thing and in my opinion setting up a wrapper or
alias really isn't any harder than configuring a ~/.rm so why add it?
5. Say you have a ~/.rm what if you rm -r something that isn't in it
but is still important...
I prefer a system that stays out of my way when I try to do something
and currently BSD fits the bill. As a side note anyone else ever have
files or folders that you have to reboot to delete on a Windows box even
when every process that *could* have it open is gone, talk about a pain.
I'm sure there are other points on both sides that could be brought up
but I'm going to make this my only email on the topic to avoid making a
(potential) flamewar any bigger.
More information about the talk