It gets worse.
In newer versions, rm does this behavior by default, without being
aliased to rm -i.
In this case, you'll need to unset rmstar to get rm to not annoy you.
You see, they discovered that advanced users were aliasing rm to rm -i
-- Can't have that! Oh no!
As soon as they find out
Gerry Lawrence wrote:
It gets worse.
In newer versions, rm does this behavior by default, without being
aliased to rm -i.
Please do tell me you are joking?
In this case, you'll need to unset rmstar to get rm to not annoy you.
You see, they discovered that advanced users were aliasing rm
Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
Gerry Lawrence wrote:
It gets worse.
In newer versions, rm does this behavior by default, without being
aliased to rm -i.
Please do tell me you are joking?
Not joking but I should have made the disclaimer that this is a new
thing to tcsh.
Yes, I know
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Gerry Lawrence wrote:
Not joking but I should have made the disclaimer that this is a new
thing to tcsh.
Yes, I know no one in the world still uses tcsh. Well, I do. Oh well.
I use tcsh. I hate it when default settings get mucked around with.
If this is what I want,
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:10:20 -0800 (PST), Ann Barcomb
a...@domaintje.com wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Gerry Lawrence wrote:
Not joking but I should have made the disclaimer that this is a new
thing to tcsh.
Yes, I know no one in the world still uses tcsh. Well, I do. Oh well.
I use
In newer versions, rm does this behavior by default, without being
aliased to rm -i.
I roll to disbelieve.
Newer versions of what? AFAIK only a few braindead Unix
distributions monkey
with rm like this. It's not like this is going into GNU rm.
Since he says:
In this case, you'll need to
David King wrote:
Since he says:
In this case, you'll need to unset rmstar to get rm to not annoy you.
I assume that 'rmstar' is a shell variable, and he means that it's a
shell with an 'rm' function replacing the behaviour of 'rm' specifically?
Ya know, this is interesting. Under my tcsh,
Gerry Lawrence writes:
David King wrote:
Since he says:
In this case, you'll need to unset rmstar to get rm to not annoy
you.
I assume that 'rmstar' is a shell variable, and he means that it's a
shell with an 'rm' function replacing the behaviour of 'rm'
specifically?
Ya
Michael G Schwern wrote:
Gerry Lawrence wrote:
It gets worse.
In newer versions, rm does this behavior by default, without being
aliased to rm -i.
I roll to disbelieve.
Sorry -- I should have mentioned: tcsh
(yes, I'm an idiot for using it. Old habits)
Newer versions of
Gerry Lawrence wrote:
Sorry -- I should have mentioned: tcsh
(yes, I'm an idiot for using it. Old habits)
Yep, you're boned.
--
91. I am not authorized to initiate Jihad.
-- The 213 Things Skippy Is No Longer Allowed To Do In The U.S. Army
http://skippyslist.com/list/
Gerry Lawrence writes:
It gets worse. In newer versions, rm does this behavior by default,
without being aliased to rm -i.
In this case, you'll need to unset rmstar to get rm to not annoy you.
rmstar appears to be a shell feature, not part of the rm command. In
particular, tcsh appears to
On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 01:03 +, Smylers wrote:
Gerry Lawrence writes:
It gets worse. In newer versions, rm does this behavior by default,
without being aliased to rm -i.
In this case, you'll need to unset rmstar to get rm to not annoy you.
rmstar appears to be a shell feature,
On 2008-12-31 at 01:16 +, Martin Ebourne wrote:
Yes, that's right, in zsh it's a negative option, and rmstartwait goes
one even better than that:
RM_STAR_SILENT (-H) K S
Do not query the user before executing `rm *' or `rm path/*'.
For reference for the non-zsh folks: that's a
On Tue, 2008-12-30 at 17:29 -0800, Phil Pennock wrote:
On 2008-12-31 at 01:16 +, Martin Ebourne wrote:
Yes, that's right, in zsh it's a negative option, and rmstartwait goes
one even better than that:
RM_STAR_SILENT (-H) K S
Do not query the user before executing `rm *' or `rm
* Martin Ebourne li...@ebourne.me.uk [2008-12-31 09:35]:
That paragraph alone is proof that negative options in software
should be legislated against.
You don't mean that they shouldn't not be legislated for, no?
Regards,
--
Aristotle Pagaltzis // http://plasmasturm.org/
Martin Ebourne writes:
RM_STAR_WAIT
If querying the user before executing `rm *' or `rm path/*',
first wait ten seconds and ignore anything typed in that time.
This avoids the problem of reflexively answering `yes' to the
query when one didn't really mean it.
I can see
On 2008-12-31, at 03:17, Abigail wrote:
Indeed. The only answer to that is to have the program ask questions
that require different answers all the time.
Wimp! give the user a ReCaptcha to solve!
The answer is to define rm as the geek only command, and start
telling people to use del, which
rpm -q -a | grep tcsh
tcsh-6.15.00-63.1
There are OSes which have this set by default?
I love Suse for just about everything but their screwup of tcsh is
unconscionable. It may not be
suse, it may be the tcsh group, I don't know.
Other tcsh hate: the new completion mess.
Actually
Gerry Lawrence writes:
There are OSes which have this set by default?
I love Suse for just about everything but their screwup of tcsh is
unconscionable.
Is tcsh the default shell in Suse?
It may not be suse, it may be the tcsh group, I don't know.
If so, then it appears that either
On 2008-12-30, at 18:28, Michael G Schwern wrote:
This is the are you sure? anti-pattern, where the computer second
guesses
every potentially irreversible command issued by the user.
The fix, as you note, is to minimize the potentially irreversible
actions. For example, instead of
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Peter da Silva pe...@taronga.com wrote:
No further comment is needed. Bastards.
boy, I've been wanting to expound upon this for years (and have, to
anybody who'd sit still and listen); in fact I was just beating
somebody over the head with it on Twitter earlier
Scott Francis writes:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Peter da Silva pe...@taronga.com
wrote:
No further comment is needed. Bastards.
boy, I've been wanting to expound upon this for years (and have, to
anybody who'd sit still and listen);
Your treating Peter's claim assertion of no
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Smylers wrote:
| Scott Francis writes:
| * default setting of remote window title - if I wanted my terminal
| windows to say bash, CWD, hostname, tty and process, I'd bloody
| well set it myself.
|
| The sytems I've seen doing this set it as part of
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 06:05:16PM +0100, Abigail wrote:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 06:54:36AM -0500, Numien wrote:
As much as I disagree with turning software hate into
hates-software-subscriber hate, I have to agree this isn't exactly one
of my big complaints with Linux.
It's not all
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 10:02:35AM +, Smylers wrote:
Scott Francis writes:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Peter da Silva pe...@taronga.com
wrote:
No further comment is needed. Bastards.
boy, I've been wanting to expound upon this for years (and have, to
anybody who'd sit
The BSD people, whose package management system is pathetically
inadequate, seem to feel that we must use all use an unnecessary, and
yet inadequate hack of file locations in order to provide a semblance of
order.
I, for one, will be glad when all of that generation are dead.
No you
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Joshua Rodman
jrod...@hate.spamportal.net wrote:
[snip]
* filesystem hierarchies that changes with the phases of the moon -
this situation has improved somewhat in the past few years, but the
related hate of package management systems that drop 3rd party
Top posting, as it's the new year.
I gotta agree with this. Freebsd's package manager and openbsd's
package management are both superior in
execution and design. Compared to any of the linux tools, including
RPM, apt-get, or Gentoo's, it's not even close.
Don't get me wrong, I love the
On Dec 31, 2008, at 1:23 PM, Gerry Lawrence wrote:
Top posting, as it's the new year.
I gotta agree with this. Freebsd's package manager and openbsd's
package management are both superior in
execution and design. Compared to any of the linux tools, including
RPM, apt-get, or Gentoo's, it's
Luke Kanies wrote:
I've always wondered about this; there must be some sort of
thinks-like-bsd gene, afaict, because you either love it or hate it.
It's not genetics, it's experience.
In my experience, it's nearly impossible to write software that
manages *bsd packages;
That's
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 11:23:06AM -0800, Gerry Lawrence wrote:
Disclaimer: I now (and recently) work in the largest BSD shop in the
world. See if you can guess where that is.
Apple?
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 10:25:32AM -0800, Scott Francis wrote:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Joshua Rodman
jrod...@hate.spamportal.net wrote:
[snip]
* filesystem hierarchies that changes with the phases of the moon -
this situation has improved somewhat in the past few years, but the
On 2008-12-31, at 14:18, Joshua Rodman wrote:
Firstly, the base OS install should be made of packages, or you've
bascially made the entire base OS install one package which fails to
support the features of other packages.
Um... what? The whole idea of abstraction that led to the use of
On 2008-12-31, at 10:23, Joshua Rodman wrote:
The BSD people, whose package management system is pathetically
inadequate
This is a use of inadequate that I haven't run into before. Usually
that implies that it's worse, rather than better, than the system one
is advocating.
I'm still
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 2:02 AM, Smylers smyl...@stripey.com wrote:
[snip]
boy, I've been wanting to expound upon this for years (and have, to
anybody who'd sit still and listen);
Your treating Peter's claim assertion of no comment being needed as an
invitation to comment? Interesting!
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 10:21:50AM -0800, Scott Francis wrote:
sure, you _could_ do the OS as a collection of packages ... given that
no other UNIX-like OS historically has done that, you could also
adhere to the principle of least surprise and keep a clear segregation
between core OS (kernel,
All,
I think this is a specific SLES 10 init hate. I don't know if RHAT or
other perversions do this. And as I write this out multiple hates are
foaming in my brain...
The software that my company makes, and that I install, support, and
consult upon uses Oracle in the background. I know, this in
Jonathan Katz wrote:
By including special comments
you can declare dependencies. After that is done you use the chkconfig
command to register the new startup script and then it will actually
work.
What the fuck were these people thinking?
I had a similar experience when I fist encountered
38 matches
Mail list logo
