On 11/09/2013 04:02, gottl...@nyu.edu wrote: > On Tue, Sep 10 2013, Alan McKinnon wrote: > >> On 10/09/2013 18:57, gottl...@nyu.edu wrote: >> >>> Alan McKinnon wrote: > >>>>> There's rules of thumb about this that will always work: >>>>> >>>>> No object in /tmp can be expected to survive successive invocations of >>>>> the program that created the object, and never survive a reboot; >>>>> No object in /var/tmp can be expected to survive a reboot >>>>> >>>>> The best place for temp files, ironically, is ~ >>> I set tmpwatch and wipe_tmp so that files survive in /tmp and /var/tmp >>> for a month. >>> >>> I don't like ~ for temp files since on some, admittedly rare, occasions >>> I actually use the gnome gui file manager and don't want a huge ~. I >>> have long ago created ~/tmp (also cleaned after a month by tmpwatch) so >>> the only problem is breaking the habit of placing short-term files in >>> /tmp instead of ~/tmp. >> >> OK, I get it. I'd write all that temp stuff to /var/tmp so it doesn't >> get nuked by something cleverly trying to manage /tmp. > > But A. McKinnon says (above) that an always valid rule of thumb is > "No object in /var/tmp can be expected to survive a reboot".
There's another rule of thumb that's even more applicable: "We always do it this way, except when we don't" I use this to great effect all the time, usually when I'm determined to get my own way at work. I highly recommend this approach, when used with a good healthy dose of intelligence you can get awesome things done :-) > >>> I realize that habit is bad for my (system's) health, but still find it >>> hard to break. I shall try again. Perhaps this is very mild form of >>> what intelligent smokers feel :-). >> >> There is no such thing as an intelligent smoker; there are only stupid >> smokers :-) >> >> I'm a two-packs-a-day man myself, I speak from many years experience! > > I promise not to mention it again, but you really should quit. > > I consider one of my contributions to computer architecture is being at > least a little influential in getting Per Stenstrom to quit. At the > time he was a rising star, who I felt would contribute greatly if he > didn't get sick from the cigs. He did quit and has certainly > contributed. You are correct of course, and I have no sensible answer for that :-) The one answer I do have is "see earlier comment 8 paragraphs above" -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
