Re: rm -rf and recursive nothing

[Bill Hacker <wbh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
> Erik Wikström 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.
>
> cheers
>  simon

Regardless of -f or any other command-tail's 'power' or absolutism, -i, -I are 
*different*, they don't DO anything 'final', but rather insure at least the 
opportunity to review other things that usually are. Parking on the <Return> key 
is a separate matter.

-i / -I are safety-nets, not fs-modifier actions, hence if/as/when present, MUST 
NOT be disregarded.

To do otherwise is tantamount to saying that the trigger should always over-ride 
the safety-catch on a loaded firearm [1] AND that one MAY or MAY NOT even have 
their eyes open or care in what direction it is pointing when pulling that trigger.

Or that a vehicle's steering may be disabled if the throttle is wide-open [2].

Good a way as any of seriously damaging oneself - or others.

Bill


[1] Some firearms are made that work that way. That doesn't make it a good idea.

[2] Characteristic of certain motorcycles...  ;-)