Re: [PATCH] mv -P

[Franco Fichtner]

> On 5. May 2018, at 11:12 PM, Theo de Raadt  wrote:
> 
> A better answer would have been "Really sorry Theo and everyone, but I
> always come off as a dick..."

A double-standard is never a good idea.  ;)


Cheers,
Franco

Re: [PATCH] mv -P

[Theo de Raadt]

Wow.

A better answer would have been "Really sorry Theo and everyone, but I
always come off as a dick..."

your opinion and screed don't change anything.

attila  wrote:

> Theo de Raadt  wrote:
> > >"Theo de Raadt"  wrote:
> > >> attila  wrote:
> > >> > Hi tech@,
> > >> > 
> > >> > I frequently want to move a file from one place to another and shred
> > >> > the original via the rm(1) -P option.  On several occasions I have
> > >> > forgotten about wanting to shred the original file when using mv(1)
> > >> > instead (out of habit) and ended up losing the ability to do so easily
> > >> > because mv(1) unlinks the original in the cross-filesystem case.
> > >> > 
> > >> > This patch adds a -P option to mv(1) that does the same thing rm -P
> > >> > does in all the cases where it would normally just unlink the source
> > >> > file.
> > >> > 
> > >> > Maybe someone else has shared my "d'oh!" moment after typing mv?
> > >> > Maybe this isn't worth it and should just be dealt with using a shell
> > >> > alias, but to me this feels cleaner.
> > >> > 
> > >> > Feedback most welcome as always.
> > >> 
> > >> over my dead body.
> > >
> > >A better answer would've been:
> > >
> > >POSIX gives us no way to "shred" a file and our non-standard
> > >extension to rm already irks us; we don't want to add yet another
> > >to mv.
> > >
> > >That would've made sense, and also would've been polite.  More
> > >importantly it would've been better for someone to have found that in
> > >the archives than what you said, which will surely leave people who
> > >find it wondering why you behave this way.
> > 
> > att...@stalphonsos.com whoever the hell you are, you don't get to tell
> > me when i am being impolite.  you are some random hiding behind an
> > email address, while everyone knows exactly who I am and where I come
> > from, with >20 years of opinion turned into validity under my belt (and
> > some wrong, but that goes with the territory)
> 
> I'm many things but anonymous isn't one of them:
> 
> attila@xix:~ 121:$ grep attila /usr/src/sys/dev/usb/urng.c
>  * Copyright (C) 2015 Sean Levy 
> 
> > On the other hand, random mostly-anon people who aren't brave enough
> > to put their full credentials into their email address tend to have
> > close to zero influence.  Shocking isn't it?  Know how to fix that?
> 
> Nothing to fix.  Those of us with Jewish last names who aren't
> zionists frequently take the approach of not blasting our last names
> across the net in every communication because we've learned that
> zionists are aggressive and it doesn't make sense to make it easy for
> them to target/abuse you.  None the less, I've never made a secret of
> who I am or that attila = Sean Levy, I just prefer not to use the
> latter in casual communication.  Anything of mine in your trees has
> had my real name attached to it since it was imported.
> 
> > So your opinion (AND JUDGEMENT ME OF) counts for far less, and you
> > should (a) consider your idiotic position, (b) recognize you aren't
> > someone who can land / not land the proposed change, and (c) realize
> > randoms on the internet/unix don't succeed change the internet/unix -
> > much to their anonymous nature, oh the dismay, oh my god.
> 
> The substance of your screed comes down to: "Don't you know who I am?"
> 
> > Over my dead body I said.
> > 
> > I mean it.  I will not permit the stupidity.  Nor will I accept the
> > stupidity of trying to call me out for calling out the stupid.
> 
> So in your view you were "calling out the stupid" by answering a patch
> with "over my dead body," and my objecting to your rudeness is also
> stupidity.  This is not an interpretation that too many people I've
> met in real life would share, but I guess that isn't the case here.
> 
> Good to know.
> 
> You also sent me a private email which was ruder and more direct.  In
> it you ask me what gives me the right... to do what, I'm not sure, but
> I guess you mean: what gives me the right to call out your rudeness?
> 
> Every person born has that right, Theo.  Everyone has the right to
> reject rudeness directed at them.
> 
> Pax, -A
> -- 
> https://haqistan.net/~attila | attila@{stalphonsos.com,haqistan.net}
> pgp: 0x62A729CF | C2CE 2487 03AC 4C2F 101D  09C1 4068 D5D5 62A7 29CF

Re: [PATCH] mv -P

[attila]

Theo de Raadt  wrote:
> >"Theo de Raadt"  wrote:
> >> attila  wrote:
> >> > Hi tech@,
> >> > 
> >> > I frequently want to move a file from one place to another and shred
> >> > the original via the rm(1) -P option.  On several occasions I have
> >> > forgotten about wanting to shred the original file when using mv(1)
> >> > instead (out of habit) and ended up losing the ability to do so easily
> >> > because mv(1) unlinks the original in the cross-filesystem case.
> >> > 
> >> > This patch adds a -P option to mv(1) that does the same thing rm -P
> >> > does in all the cases where it would normally just unlink the source
> >> > file.
> >> > 
> >> > Maybe someone else has shared my "d'oh!" moment after typing mv?
> >> > Maybe this isn't worth it and should just be dealt with using a shell
> >> > alias, but to me this feels cleaner.
> >> > 
> >> > Feedback most welcome as always.
> >> 
> >> over my dead body.
> >
> >A better answer would've been:
> >
> >POSIX gives us no way to "shred" a file and our non-standard
> >extension to rm already irks us; we don't want to add yet another
> >to mv.
> >
> >That would've made sense, and also would've been polite.  More
> >importantly it would've been better for someone to have found that in
> >the archives than what you said, which will surely leave people who
> >find it wondering why you behave this way.
> 
> att...@stalphonsos.com whoever the hell you are, you don't get to tell
> me when i am being impolite.  you are some random hiding behind an
> email address, while everyone knows exactly who I am and where I come
> from, with >20 years of opinion turned into validity under my belt (and
> some wrong, but that goes with the territory)

I'm many things but anonymous isn't one of them:

attila@xix:~ 121:$ grep attila /usr/src/sys/dev/usb/urng.c
 * Copyright (C) 2015 Sean Levy 

> On the other hand, random mostly-anon people who aren't brave enough
> to put their full credentials into their email address tend to have
> close to zero influence.  Shocking isn't it?  Know how to fix that?

Nothing to fix.  Those of us with Jewish last names who aren't
zionists frequently take the approach of not blasting our last names
across the net in every communication because we've learned that
zionists are aggressive and it doesn't make sense to make it easy for
them to target/abuse you.  None the less, I've never made a secret of
who I am or that attila = Sean Levy, I just prefer not to use the
latter in casual communication.  Anything of mine in your trees has
had my real name attached to it since it was imported.

> So your opinion (AND JUDGEMENT ME OF) counts for far less, and you
> should (a) consider your idiotic position, (b) recognize you aren't
> someone who can land / not land the proposed change, and (c) realize
> randoms on the internet/unix don't succeed change the internet/unix -
> much to their anonymous nature, oh the dismay, oh my god.

The substance of your screed comes down to: "Don't you know who I am?"

> Over my dead body I said.
> 
> I mean it.  I will not permit the stupidity.  Nor will I accept the
> stupidity of trying to call me out for calling out the stupid.

So in your view you were "calling out the stupid" by answering a patch
with "over my dead body," and my objecting to your rudeness is also
stupidity.  This is not an interpretation that too many people I've
met in real life would share, but I guess that isn't the case here.

Good to know.

You also sent me a private email which was ruder and more direct.  In
it you ask me what gives me the right... to do what, I'm not sure, but
I guess you mean: what gives me the right to call out your rudeness?

Every person born has that right, Theo.  Everyone has the right to
reject rudeness directed at them.

Pax, -A
-- 
https://haqistan.net/~attila | attila@{stalphonsos.com,haqistan.net}
pgp: 0x62A729CF | C2CE 2487 03AC 4C2F 101D  09C1 4068 D5D5 62A7 29CF

Re: [PATCH] mv -P

[Theo de Raadt]

>"Theo de Raadt"  wrote:
>> attila  wrote:
>> > Hi tech@,
>> > 
>> > I frequently want to move a file from one place to another and shred
>> > the original via the rm(1) -P option.  On several occasions I have
>> > forgotten about wanting to shred the original file when using mv(1)
>> > instead (out of habit) and ended up losing the ability to do so easily
>> > because mv(1) unlinks the original in the cross-filesystem case.
>> > 
>> > This patch adds a -P option to mv(1) that does the same thing rm -P
>> > does in all the cases where it would normally just unlink the source
>> > file.
>> > 
>> > Maybe someone else has shared my "d'oh!" moment after typing mv?
>> > Maybe this isn't worth it and should just be dealt with using a shell
>> > alias, but to me this feels cleaner.
>> > 
>> > Feedback most welcome as always.
>> 
>> over my dead body.
>
>A better answer would've been:
>
>POSIX gives us no way to "shred" a file and our non-standard
>extension to rm already irks us; we don't want to add yet another
>to mv.
>
>That would've made sense, and also would've been polite.  More
>importantly it would've been better for someone to have found that in
>the archives than what you said, which will surely leave people who
>find it wondering why you behave this way.

att...@stalphonsos.com whoever the hell you are, you don't get to tell
me when i am being impolite.  you are some random hiding behind an
email address, while everyone knows exactly who I am and where I come
from, with >20 years of opinion turned into validity under my belt (and
some wrong, but that goes with the territory)

On the other hand, random mostly-anon people who aren't brave enough
to put their full credentials into their email address tend to have
close to zero influence.  Shocking isn't it?  Know how to fix that?

So your opinion (AND JUDGEMENT ME OF) counts for far less, and you
should (a) consider your idiotic position, (b) recognize you aren't
someone who can land / not land the proposed change, and (c) realize
randoms on the internet/unix don't succeed change the internet/unix -
much to their anonymous nature, oh the dismay, oh my god.

Over my dead body I said.

I mean it.  I will not permit the stupidity.  Nor will I accept the
stupidity of trying to call me out for calling out the stupid.

Re: [PATCH] mv -P

[attila]

"Theo de Raadt"  wrote:
> attila  wrote:
> > Hi tech@,
> > 
> > I frequently want to move a file from one place to another and shred
> > the original via the rm(1) -P option.  On several occasions I have
> > forgotten about wanting to shred the original file when using mv(1)
> > instead (out of habit) and ended up losing the ability to do so easily
> > because mv(1) unlinks the original in the cross-filesystem case.
> > 
> > This patch adds a -P option to mv(1) that does the same thing rm -P
> > does in all the cases where it would normally just unlink the source
> > file.
> > 
> > Maybe someone else has shared my "d'oh!" moment after typing mv?
> > Maybe this isn't worth it and should just be dealt with using a shell
> > alias, but to me this feels cleaner.
> > 
> > Feedback most welcome as always.
> 
> over my dead body.

A better answer would've been:

POSIX gives us no way to "shred" a file and our non-standard
extension to rm already irks us; we don't want to add yet another
to mv.

That would've made sense, and also would've been polite.  More
importantly it would've been better for someone to have found that in
the archives than what you said, which will surely leave people who
find it wondering why you behave this way.

Pax, -A
-- 
https://haqistan.net/~attila | attila@{stalphonsos.com,haqistan.net}
pgp: 0x62A729CF | C2CE 2487 03AC 4C2F 101D  09C1 4068 D5D5 62A7 29CF

Re: [PATCH] mv -P

[Jesper Wallin]

Hi,

Adding a -P to your command might of course be easier, but since you
have -P in rm(1) and -v was added recently, won't this do:

mv newfile "$(rm -Pv oldfile)"


Regards
Jesper Wallin

Re: [PATCH] mv -P

[Theo de Raadt]

attila  wrote:
> Hi tech@,
> 
> I frequently want to move a file from one place to another and shred
> the original via the rm(1) -P option.  On several occasions I have
> forgotten about wanting to shred the original file when using mv(1)
> instead (out of habit) and ended up losing the ability to do so easily
> because mv(1) unlinks the original in the cross-filesystem case.
> 
> This patch adds a -P option to mv(1) that does the same thing rm -P
> does in all the cases where it would normally just unlink the source
> file.
> 
> Maybe someone else has shared my "d'oh!" moment after typing mv?
> Maybe this isn't worth it and should just be dealt with using a shell
> alias, but to me this feels cleaner.
> 
> Feedback most welcome as always.

over my dead body.

this is about 500 meters below the bar for adding a new option.

Re: [PATCH] mv -P

[Ingo Schwarze]

Hi,

attila wrote on Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 11:50:17AM -0500:

> I frequently want to move a file from one place to another and shred
> the original via the rm(1) -P option.

I strongly object to adding another turd on top of the useless
rm(1) -P option; it was recently discussed how useless it is,
search the archives.

Adding new non-standard options to standard utilities needs very
strong reasons and is generally frowned upon.  In this case, there
are very strong reasons - to *not* add this option.

Yours,
  Ingo