Re: [patch] rm can have undesired side-effects
- From: Freddie Cash <fcash@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 16:13:59 -0800
On Monday 30 October 2006 01:17 pm, Mike Meyer wrote:
In <45466902.5090603@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Doug Barton <dougb@xxxxxxxxxxx>typed:
Simon L. Nielsen wrote:
Personally I think rm should do what you ask it to do - if you ask
it to overwrite a file which has multiple links, well... though
luck.
It's all well and good to say, "tough luck," but I don't think that's
what our users expect.
I'm a user. It's what I expect. If I wanted an OS that protected me
from myself, I wouldn't be running Unix. Please give me the rope I
need to get the job done. If that happens to be enough that I can hang
myself, and I sometimes do - well, I got what I asked for. When I want
to be coddled, I'll run a different OS.
Isn't that what the -f option is for in every command?
By default, be conservative in what you do (error out with nice messages
when in doubt).
If the user knows what they are doing then let them specify -f.
--
Freddie Cash
fcash@xxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [patch] rm can have undesired side-effects
- From: Mike Meyer
- Re: [patch] rm can have undesired side-effects
- References:
- [patch] rm can have undesired side-effects
- From: Romain Tartiere
- Re: [patch] rm can have undesired side-effects
- From: Doug Barton
- Re: [patch] rm can have undesired side-effects
- From: Mike Meyer
- [patch] rm can have undesired side-effects
- Prev by Date: Re: [patch] rm can have undesired side-effects
- Next by Date: Re: [patch] rm can have undesired side-effects
- Previous by thread: Re: [patch] rm can have undesired side-effects
- Next by thread: Re: [patch] rm can have undesired side-effects
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
