Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:49:32 -0800
From:      perryh@pluto.rain.com
To:        vd@freebsd.org
Cc:        freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: [patch] rm can have undesired side-effects
Message-ID:  <45470e1c.Ygp7f4OdPaauT8tL%perryh@pluto.rain.com>
In-Reply-To: <20061031072649.GA69594@qlovarnika.bg.datamax>
References:  <20061029222847.GA68272@marvin.astase.com> <20061030003628.42bc5f8d@loki.starkstrom.lan> <45455f6a.yNcc0kkyEKpoRv3m%perryh@pluto.rain.com> <20061030083849.GB871@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <20061030103151.GD871@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <20061030202030.GB1043@zaphod.nitro.dk> <45466902.5090603@FreeBSD.org> <20061031072649.GA69594@qlovarnika.bg.datamax>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> IMHO many problems arise when someone tries to please even the
> stupidest user by writing a fool-proof software. To me the beauty
> of Unixes is that they are _not_ fool-proof, e.g. your are holding
> a real gun, you should be carefull not to point it to your head
> and pull the trigger.

If we wanted to follow that line of reasoning to its logical
conclusion, I think we would have to make "-f" the default
behavior for rm, which BTW is how it worked in AT&T 6th Edition.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?45470e1c.Ygp7f4OdPaauT8tL%perryh>