DStevenson writes:
> On Wednesday 27 June 2001 06:47, Paul wrote:
> > It was Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:49:01 EDT when [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >It took a while to catch onto the ./ thingy.. now that I know it, I still
> > >don't understand *why* this is necessary. I know, it's easy enough to add
> > > it to .bash_profile or wherever, but is there a justifiable reason why
> > > Linux makes you specify that the program you want to execute is in the
> > > current directory?
> >
> > Linux just does not assume the dir you are in as part of the path.
> > Windoze/Dos do that.
> > It is a safety catch. Suppose someone hacks your machine and adds an "ls"
> > program to your home dir. And you do an "ls". And this new ls only wipes
> > out all the data you have access to. Not too nice, eh?
> >
> > Linux/Unix is about safety in the same way Windows is not.
> > Paul
> >
> > --
> > To give of yourself, you must first know yourself.
> >
> > http://nlpagan.net - Registered Linux User 174403
> > Linux Mandrake 8.0 - Sylpheed 0.4.99
> > ** http://www.care2.com - when you care **
>
> If they can hack your system, then they can hack your path!!! Or you can add
> a "." into your path environment variable. Put the "." at the end of the
> path entries and that way linux will search the other paths first but will
> always look in the current working directory last of all.
>
> Dave.
>
Putting . on the end of your path is safer then putting it on front
but more confusing. I have had many users who put . on the end of a
path only to get confused because there script called test doesn't
work, if found /usr/bin/test earler on the path. I still vote for
keeping it off.
