Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2025 12:35:22 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 280941] The reboot command considered harmful Message-ID: <bug-280941-227-C37WtzcM0f@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 #10 from Anton Shepelev <ant-x@rambler.ru> --- Maxim Konovalov: > While it might be counter-intuitive to some people there > is obviously a cohort that finds the current behavior > quite intuitive. I am one of them and used to what > reboot(8) has been doing for decades. Habit is not intuition. For exaple, vi's `hjkl' navigation is not intuituve, yet users learn it by constant practice. I still insist that `reboot' is counter-intuitive because by default and without any parameters it should perform a normal, graceful reboot. Ed Maste: > > a new command-line option, such as -f > > I like the idea, but -f is already taken: > > reboot [-cDdflNnpqr] [-e variable=3Dvalue] [-k kernel] [-o options] Who'd imagine so meny options and parameters to `reboot'? Where did you find them? On official man-page the syntax differs: reboot [-cdlNnpqr] [-k kernel] <https://man.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?reboot(8)>; Anyway, even if -f (for fast) and -q (for quick) are taken -- something I ought to have checked myself -- how about the uppercase -F? --=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-C37WtzcM0f>