Re: Linux hates (was Re: alias rm "rm -i")

* Scott Francis [2009-01-01 00:00]: On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Aaron J. Grier wrote: > any examples of linux distributions in which segregation > between "core OS" and "aftermarket packages" is not an > ephemeral illusion? slackware, maybe; I haven't used it in a while, but it _is_ the m

Re: Linux hates (was Re: alias rm "rm -i")

On 2009-01-05, at 10:25, David Cantrell wrote: You've never run into "inadequate" meaning that something is not good enough? Yah, but that meaning doesn't apply. This was brought to you by hates-poor-use-of-langu...@whatever. Or hates-sarcasm?

Re: Linux hates (was Re: alias rm "rm -i")

On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 01:28:09PM -0600, Peter da Silva wrote: > 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. You've never run into "inadequate" mean

Re: Linux hates (was Re: alias rm "rm -i")

On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 04:08:38PM -0800, Joshua Rodman wrote: > Funny that all the software I download from the internet thinks it's > supposed to install by default into /usr/local. > > The various BSDs *might* have an argument if the ports installed into > /usr/portlocal or /usr/local/ports som

Re: MacPorts hate (was Re: Package manager hate - was Re: Linux hates (was Re: alias rm "rm -i"))

On 2009-01-02, at 21:37, Benjamin Reed wrote: Porting existing unix software to bundles and frameworks doesn't work well, because they expect to spew config files and .po files and all kinds of other stuff all over the filesystem, and aren't good at locating their resources through relative paths

Re: MacPorts hate (was Re: Package manager hate - was Re: Linux hates (was Re: alias rm "rm -i"))

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Peter da Silva wrote: > On 2009-01-02, at 14:13, Benjamin Reed wrote: >> Also, Apple's built-in installer package management is only an >> installer, not a package manager. > > I'm not talking about Apple's *installer*, I'm talking about Apple's > bun

Re: MacPorts hate (was Re: Package manager hate - was Re: Linux hates (was Re: alias rm "rm -i"))

On 2009-01-02, at 14:13, Benjamin Reed wrote: Also, Apple's built-in installer package management is only an installer, not a package manager. I'm not talking about Apple's *installer*, I'm talking about Apple's bundles and frameworks. Bundles and frameworks don't overwrite anything, becaus

Re: MacPorts hate (was Re: Package manager hate - was Re: Linux hates (was Re: alias rm "rm -i"))

On Jan 2, 2009, at 2:13 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote: Also, Apple's built-in installer package management is only an installer, not a package manager. It has no intelligence as to what happens after things get installed (other than writing a manifest of what it did, completely oblivious to whether i

Re: MacPorts hate (was Re: Package manager hate - was Re: Linux hates (was Re: alias rm "rm -i"))

On Jan 2, 2009, at 2:13 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote: Also, Apple's built-in installer package management is only an installer, not a package manager. It has no intelligence as to what happens after things get installed (other than writing a manifest of what it did, completely oblivious to whether i

Re: MacPorts hate (was Re: Package manager hate - was Re: Linux hates (was Re: alias rm "rm -i"))

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Walt Mankowski wrote: > Yeah, I think that's fink. I don't know what MacPorts is based on. Using tcl and it's own home-grown stuff. At one point it had layers to serialize to RPMs, dpkg, and/or apple installer .pkg's, but I don't know what's functio

Re: MacPorts hate (was Re: Package manager hate - was Re: Linux hates (was Re: alias rm "rm -i"))

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Peter da Silva wrote: > Or is that Fink? The fact that there's two competing ports-based systems > for OS X is a third layer of hate. That's fink. And you can thank darwinports for making their own system after fink was already stable, because Apple

Re: Package manager hate - was Re: Linux hates (was Re: alias rm "rm -i")

1 - If you're convinced I'm just stupid and that it's wicked-easy to get consistent behaviour, I challenge you to do so. You would make *many* bsd Puppet users happy. I gave up on it to. It drove me away from FreeBSD entirely for our application environment. If I can't guarantee a cons

Re: MacPorts hate (was Re: Package manager hate - was Re: Linux hates (was Re: alias rm "rm -i"))

On Thu, Jan 01, 2009 at 10:27:27AM -0600, Peter da Silva wrote: > I believe that MacPorts uses debian packages as an intermediate step, so > it incorporates the best hate from both sides of the aisle (yes, all > software is hateful, Ports is software, therefore it's hateful, some of > us just fi

Re: MacPorts hate (was Re: Package manager hate - was Re: Linux hates (was Re: alias rm "rm -i"))

I believe that MacPorts uses debian packages as an intermediate step, so it incorporates the best hate from both sides of the aisle (yes, all software is hateful, Ports is software, therefore it's hateful, some of us just find it less hateful than the alternative of building the whole syste

Re: MacPorts hate (was Re: Package manager hate - was Re: Linux hates (was Re: alias rm "rm -i"))

On 2008-12-31 at 18:49 -0800, Michael G Schwern wrote: > My only real experience with BSD-style packages is with MacPorts. I have no > idea what their relation really is, but BSD ports can't possibly be this bad > and have such a rabid following. > God forbid I wanted to fix any of this because i

Re: MacPorts hate (was Re: Package manager hate - was Re: Linux hates (was Re: alias rm "rm -i"))

On Dec 31, 2008, at 7:36 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote: Joshua Juran wrote: On Dec 31, 2008, at 6:49 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote: My only real experience with BSD-style packages is with MacPorts. I have no idea what their relation really is, but BSD ports can't possibly be this bad and have su

Re: MacPorts hate (was Re: Package manager hate - was Re: Linux hates (was Re: alias rm "rm -i"))

Joshua Juran wrote: > On Dec 31, 2008, at 6:49 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote: > >> My only real experience with BSD-style packages is with MacPorts. I >> have no >> idea what their relation really is, but BSD ports can't possibly be >> this bad >> and have such a rabid following. > > Wait... isn't

Re: Linux hates (was Re: alias rm "rm -i")

Aaron J. Grier wrote: > 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 segregat

Re: MacPorts hate (was Re: Package manager hate - was Re: Linux hates (was Re: alias rm "rm -i"))

On Dec 31, 2008, at 6:49 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote: My only real experience with BSD-style packages is with MacPorts. I have no idea what their relation really is, but BSD ports can't possibly be this bad and have such a rabid following. Wait... isn't this a Mac? I thought you could be

MacPorts hate (was Re: Package manager hate - was Re: Linux hates (was Re: alias rm "rm -i"))

My only real experience with BSD-style packages is with MacPorts. I have no idea what their relation really is, but BSD ports can't possibly be this bad and have such a rabid following. First off, it has to compile everything from fucking source. This is great until you want to install something

Re: Linux hates (was Re: alias rm "rm -i")

On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 02:55:40PM -0800, Scott Francis wrote: > On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Joshua Rodman > wrote: > [snip] > > >> the ability to (for instance) tar up everything in /usr/local and know > >> for a certainty you have backed up everything package-wise that was > >> not part o

Re: Linux hates (was Re: alias rm "rm -i")

On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Joshua Rodman wrote: [snip] >> the ability to (for instance) tar up everything in /usr/local and know >> for a certainty you have backed up everything package-wise that was >> not part of the base OS install, allowing you to do a clean reinstall, >> is useful. >

Re: Linux hates (was Re: alias rm "rm -i")

On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Aaron J. Grier wrote: > 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

Re: Linux hates (was Re: alias rm "rm -i")

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 (kern

Re: Linux hates (was Re: alias rm "rm -i")

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 operat

Re: Package manager hate - was Re: Linux hates (was Re: alias rm "rm -i")

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?

Re: Package manager hate - was Re: Linux hates (was Re: alias rm "rm -i")

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 inte

Re: alias rm "rm -i"

* Martin Ebourne [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 //

Re: Linux hates (was Re: alias rm "rm -i")

On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 10:25:32AM -0800, Scott Francis wrote: > On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Joshua Rodman > 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

Re: Package manager hate - was Re: Linux hates (was Re: alias rm "rm -i")

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

Re: alias rm "rm -i"

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",

Re: Linux hates (was Re: alias rm "rm -i")

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 di

Re: Package manager hate - was Re: Linux hates (was Re: alias rm "rm -i")

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 littl

Re: Linux hates (was Re: alias rm "rm -i")

On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Joshua Rodman 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 >> > packages into sys

Re: Linux hates (was Re: alias rm "rm -i")

On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 2:02 AM, Smylers 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! perhaps not surp

Re: Linux hates (was Re: alias rm "rm -i")

> > 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 yo

Re: Linux hates (was Re: alias rm "rm -i")

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 n

Re: Linux hates (was Re: alias rm "rm -i")

On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 06:54:36AM -0500, Numien wrote: > -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 > |> we

Re: alias rm "rm -i"

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:10:20 -0800 (PST), Ann Barcomb 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 tcsh. Me

Re: Linux hates (was Re: alias rm "rm -i")

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 > > 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 s

Re: Linux hates (was Re: alias rm "rm -i")

-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 o

Re: Linux hates (was Re: alias rm "rm -i")

Scott Francis writes: > On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Peter da Silva > 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 comment bein

Re: alias rm "rm -i"

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/

Re: alias rm "rm -i"

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' > > sp

Re: alias rm "rm -i"

On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 09:14:45AM +, Smylers wrote: > 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 answeri

Re: alias rm "rm -i"

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 s

Re: alias rm "rm -i"

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

Re: alias rm "rm -i"

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) > > Do not query the user before executing `rm *

Linux hates (was Re: alias rm "rm -i")

On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Peter da Silva 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 today (but that's

Re: alias rm "rm -i"

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 automat

Re: alias rm "rm -i"

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) > Do not query the user before executing `rm *' or `rm path/*'. For reference for the non-zsh folks: that's a co

Re: alias rm "rm -i"

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. > Actuall

Re: alias rm "rm -i"

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

Re: alias rm "rm -i"

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, I'l

Re: alias rm "rm -i"

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

Re: alias rm "rm -i"

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 m

Re: alias rm "rm -i"

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

Re: alias rm "rm -i"

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) > N

Re: alias rm "rm -i"

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

Re: alias rm "rm -i"

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. 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. --

Re: alias rm "rm -i"

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 alias

Re: alias rm "rm -i"

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 th

alias rm "rm -i"

No further comment is needed. Bastards.