On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 18:54 +0100, Milan P. Stanic wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 04:55:52PM +, Lesley Binks wrote:
> > In *nix based systems rm has always meant rm - deleting files does just
> > that.
> > The KDE Desktop provides the option to keep this functionality or have
> > temporary t
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 04:55:52PM +, Lesley Binks wrote:
> In *nix based systems rm has always meant rm - deleting files does just that.
> The KDE Desktop provides the option to keep this functionality or have
> temporary trash can on the desktop. However, you don't get the option
> of a tras
I demand that Andrew M.A. Cater may or may not have written...
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 05:12:50AM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
[snip]
>> Maybe asking "Are you sure you want to do this", but outright refusing
>> to do something seems quite ridiculous to me.
> Of course, knowing that I do such t
On 23/03/2008, Andrew M.A. Cater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 03:50:32PM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sat, 2008-03-22 at 13:51 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > > To get those Vistaesque questions, "alias rm='rm -i'" is surely not
> > > worth a
> > >
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 03:50:32PM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, 2008-03-22 at 13:51 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > To get those Vistaesque questions, "alias rm='rm -i'" is surely not
> > worth a
> > package. It's slightly larger in scope, but only slightly, as
> > removing
> >
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 09:14:57AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> Of course, knowing that I do such things on occasion, I have aliased
> 'rm' to 'rm -i', so it will ask unless I pass '-f' along.
Speaking from experience, this kind of behavior makes people use "rm -f" all
the time, which means
* William Pitcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080322 21:49]:
> Yes, that's what I mean: what's wrong with making rm -i the default
> behaviour? We could do that by simply patching coreutils.
The biggest problem with rm -i is that there is no switch reverting it.
There is -f, but that means deleting every
On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 22:16:12 +1300,
Francois Marier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - how to get this script to be picked up before 'rm' in the PATH (including
> when using sudo) or whether it should be an alias in all of the shell
> global config files (like /etc/bash.bashrc)
Call the script dir
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 03:50:32PM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, 2008-03-22 at 13:51 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > To get those Vistaesque questions, "alias rm='rm -i'" is surely not
> > worth a
> > package. It's slightly larger in scope, but only slightly, as
> > removing
> >
Hi,
On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 00:08 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Christ, no. If you want Fedora you know where to find it.
I was being sarcastic. But it's certaintly better than making some
script the default.
Optimally no change to rm is best unless you opt in.
William
signature.asc
Descriptio
William wrote:
>
>On Sat, 2008-03-22 at 13:51 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
>> To get those Vistaesque questions, "alias rm='rm -i'" is surely not
>> worth a
>> package. It's slightly larger in scope, but only slightly, as
>> removing
>> files as root means you mess with system directories, right?
On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 15:50:32 -0500, William Pitcock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hi,
> On Sat, 2008-03-22 at 13:51 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
>> To get those Vistaesque questions, "alias rm='rm -i'" is surely not
>> worth a package. It's slightly larger in scope, but only slightly,
>> as removi
William Pitcock wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, 2008-03-22 at 13:51 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
To get those Vistaesque questions, "alias rm='rm -i'" is surely not
worth a
package. It's slightly larger in scope, but only slightly, as
removing
files as root means you mess with system directories, right?
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Francois Marier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Having recently deleted my /usr/lib by mistake (and gone through the pain of
> reinstalling all of my packages), I wrote a little Perl script which I have
> now aliased to "rm" in my .bashrc.
At one point I set my sy
Hi,
On Sat, 2008-03-22 at 13:51 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> To get those Vistaesque questions, "alias rm='rm -i'" is surely not
> worth a
> package. It's slightly larger in scope, but only slightly, as
> removing
> files as root means you mess with system directories, right?
Yes, that's what
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 05:12:50AM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, 2008-03-22 at 22:16 +1300, Francois Marier wrote:
> > Basically, the wrapper (see attached file) has a blacklist which
> > contains
> > directories like /usr/lib, /home, /etc and removes those before
> > passing its
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 05:12:50AM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-03-22 at 22:16 +1300, Francois Marier wrote:
> > Basically, the wrapper (see attached file) has a blacklist which
> > contains
> > directories like /usr/lib, /home, /etc and removes those before
> > passing its
> > argu
Hi,
On Sat, 2008-03-22 at 22:16 +1300, Francois Marier wrote:
> Basically, the wrapper (see attached file) has a blacklist which
> contains
> directories like /usr/lib, /home, /etc and removes those before
> passing its
> arguments to the real 'rm' command.
While I'm sorry for you having to reins
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008, Francois Marier wrote:
> P.S. I realize that 'rm' is a low-level command which should do what it's
> told, but the reality is that a lot of people use it directly on a daily
> basis and can accidently hose their system. I don't want to implement a
> "command-line trashcan", b
19 matches
Mail list logo
