Re: rm -rf and recursive nothing

["Jonas Trollvik" <jontro@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 7/22/06, Peter Avalos <pavalos@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 22, 2006 at 03:36:59PM +0200, Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
> > Erik Wikstr?m wrote:
> > >>What one is saying in effect is "I may not have gotten all this right,
> > >>or there may be surprises, so I want to see and specifically approve
> > >>each/some actions".
> > >
> > >The problem arises when -i/-I us used with -f, which by the same
> > >reasoning also should be at "the top of the food-chain". -f says that I
> > >know what I'm doing so don't bother me with asking for confirmation. Not
> > >that I don't approve of the way things are at the moment but I can see
> > >why some might not agree.
> >
> > I don't agree with the meaning.  For me -f means "try to remove in every
> > case and don't fail", i.e. also remove write-protected files and don't fail
> > if the files didn't even exist.
> >
>
> I somewhat agree with this, but I understand both arguements.  Perhaps a
> good compromise would be 'rm -ff'.
>
> --Peter

This would defeat the purpose of -l.
I really dont see the issue here. No one is forcing anyone to use -l,
users that do not wish this behaviour just needs to remove the alias

-Jonas