| |||||||||||||
Shortening the rope (around RH's neck)Shortening the rope (around RH's neck)Posted Apr 3, 2009 21:35 UTC (Fri) by madscientist (subscriber, #16861)In reply to: Shortening the rope (around RH's neck) by vblum Parent article: Shortening the rope
If you weren't used to "rm" always asking, you'd be more careful (personally I use alias rm='rm -f' and I'm always careful :-)). Maybe you'd use "rm -i" explicitly when you wanted to be asked.
Believe me it doesn't take more than one time of not having that alias around, for whatever reason, running "rm" with the expectation it will ask you before deleting anything, and destroying important work to realize what a bad idea this is.
(Log in to post comments)
Shortening the rope (around RH's neck) Posted Apr 5, 2009 19:09 UTC (Sun) by jengelh (subscriber, #33263) [Link]
If rm -f is considered too dangerous, and rm -i too noisy, then try something like
function rm()
and let cron evict it time and again.
Shortening the rope (around RH's neck) Posted Apr 6, 2009 11:28 UTC (Mon) by vblum (guest, #1151) [Link]
hm, no, not true for me ... I was perfectly accustomed to to normal rm for a long time, until I once deleted my home directory. Once is all it takes (mind you, that was one out of >= 10^5 rm's that I ever typed).
Anything that asks you before deleting will make you think, even if it's after typing "y" for the 15th time ("hm .... strange that I am still typing "y" although I was only going to delete two files ... hm ...")
As for the second point, of course I wouldn't think of figuring out what I actually wanted to delete after being asked by -i ... that completely defeats the purpose of a safety net (and maybe that is why many in the thread do not understand why rm -i is a good thing, because it can be used for the purpose of making a deliberate selection ...)
|
|||||||||||||