Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2025 11:50:34 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 280941] The reboot command considered harmful Message-ID: <bug-280941-227-yy5oJZkzov@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-280941-227@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-280941-227@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D280941 --- Comment #13 from Aljoscha Vollmerhaus <bugs.freebsd.org@aljoscha.vollme= rhaus.net> --- I believe the issue stems from the way "reboot, the action" is easily confl= ated with "reboot, the command". When users are told to "reboot," it=E2=80=99s n= atural to assume that the simplest and most direct way to do so is by running reboot. For example, even freebsd-update instructs users: "[...] Please reboot and run freebsd-update again [...]". It=E2=80=99s reasonable to assume that many users will instinctively type r= eboot in response - I certainly did. And why wouldn=E2=80=99t they? At no point is there any indication that "re= boot" is not intended for normal reboots. Casual use of the term "reboot", even in offic= ial tools, reinforces the assumption that the reboot command is the correct and expected way to do so. So while official tools could certainly use "shutdown -r now" instead of "reboot", I strongly believe that "reboot" is so deeply ingrained in the vocabulary of both IT professionals - including FreeBSD devs it seems - and everyday users, that trying to educate every potential FreeBSD user about t= his distinction would be an uphill battle. Regardless of prior experience with Linux or whatever else. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-280941-227-yy5oJZkzov>