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 > > files as root means you mess with system directories, right? > > Yes, that's what I mean: what's wrong with making rm -i the default > behaviour? We could do that by simply patching coreutils. > > William
Go away and learn: there have been whole flamewars on this subject :) Red Hat (if I remember correctly) used to alias rm automatically to rm -i . The savvy users used to unalias rm before using it. If, when you run as root, rm always asks - you get used to it. You move to a different system where there is no alias or someone has turned it off - and suddenly rm MEANS rm with no breathing space. Much better, in my opinion which is shared by some others, to _always_ have rm as rm. There's nothing to stop the cautious explicitly calling rm as rm -i anyway - but when you need to delete large numbers of files, rm -i is a _real_ nuisance. AndyC -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]