Ben Scott Scribed: > Aliases are not the problem. The problem is aliasing commands *for > someone else*. If I alias 'ls' to 'rm -rf .', then that is my own business, > and presumably I have a reason. It is things like Unix and Linux distro > vendors setting up "default" aliases which gets people into trouble. I > think that is a bad idea, for all the reasons Paul brings up, and wish > vendors would not engage in the practice.
Hmmm. A point all of you are making is how bad RH is for aliasing "rm -i" because it gets you used to it. Well... they don't. Except as root. You guys aren't running as root all the time, are you? ;-) That would be yet another bad thing (YABT). I happen to think it's handy to have rm, when root, changed to "rm -i": that way, when I spend the bulk of my time as Joe User, rm works as God intended it, but those times when you run the possibility of having "too much" power, it's handy to be forced to think things through. And, since it's the exception, and not the rule, it's not like your fingers get used to it. </devil's advocate> -Ken ***************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *****************************************************************
