On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Jonathan Wilson wrote:
> At 01:52 PM 12/16/2000 -0500, you wrote:
> >
> ># pwd
> >/tmp/d/e
> ># rm -rf .*
> >rm: cannot remove '.' or '..'
> >rm: cannot remove '.' or '..'
>
> This is due to permissions, most likely, not lack of function. Try
> that as root and watch it go :-
At 01:52 PM 12/16/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Bill Anderson wrote:
>
>> Bret Hughes wrote:
>> >
>> > Bill Anderson wrote:
>> ...
>> > > Or my favorite:
>> > > rm -rf .*
>> > > thinking it will remove the current directory OR all the dotfiles in the
>> > > current directory ... and
D'oh!
Forgot to finish my last thought:
Additionally, important system data (like /var) and user data (like /home)
are kept on software RAID1 filesystems to keep them safe from disk
failure. I can always restore the OS from tape (or reinstall from CD if
worse comes to worse), but users tend
This thread seems to have degenerated into a discussion about the finer
points of the rm command ;-) but I'll throw in my $0.02 about backups anyway:
We BRU and HP SCSI DDS-2 and DDS-4 tape drives. Full backups are performed
Friday with differential backups Saturday thru Thursday. The Saturda
On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Bill Anderson wrote:
> Cameron Simpson wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 11:31:09AM -0700, Bill Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > | > > Or my favorite:
> > | > > rm -rf .*
> > | > > thinking it will remove the current directory OR all the dotfiles in the
> > | > >
Cameron Simpson wrote:
>So you will find
>
> ${1+"$@"}
>
>in portable wrapper scripts.
>
>Aside: ${1:+"$@"} is wrong wrong wrong. As an exercise, tell me what it would
> break.
Hmm ... the latter construct would allow a null argument. So to
demonstrate to myself how the behavior wo
Cameron Simpson wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 11:31:09AM -0700, Bill Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > > Or my favorite:
> | > > rm -rf .*
> | > > thinking it will remove the current directory OR all the dotfiles in the
> | > > current directory ... and are root.
> | > I assume this
On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 10:38:27AM -0600, Bret Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Personally I love the colored ls :)
Many seem to. But I find dark blue text on my black backgrounded windows damn
hard to read, and find that colour tells me nothing that:
ls -F
doesn't. It narks me that th
On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 01:31:19PM -0600, David Talkington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Cameron Simpson wrote:
| >One thing I have done in my own shell setup is alias (well, shell
| >function, but the idea's the same) rm, cp, chmod, chown, chgrp and a
| >couple of others to an equivalent of
| >
Cameron Simpson wrote:
>
>One thing I have done in my own shell setup is alias (well, shell
>function, but the idea's the same) rm, cp, chmod, chown, chgrp and a
>couple of others to an equivalent of
>
> ( set -x; rm ${1+"$@"}; )
>
>i.e. I get to see the results of my shell expansion for the
Cameron Simpson wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 02:34:11AM -0600, David Talkington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> | >If I leave off the -f flag GNU rm seems to ask about _every_ bloody
> | >file. This makes it so close to useless that one must use -f all the
> | >time. Which is VERY VERY BAD, be
Me> While we're bitching about rm, anyone know how to fix its prompting behaviour?
Man do I feel silly now. Thanks guys.
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 10:04:45PM -0600, Bret Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > I believe you are just being affected by Redhat's decision to make sure only
| > experienc
On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 02:34:11AM -0600, David Talkington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| >If I leave off the -f flag GNU rm seems to ask about _every_ bloody
| >file. This makes it so close to useless that one must use -f all the
| >time. Which is VERY VERY BAD, because it makes habitual the "don'
>If I leave off the -f flag GNU rm seems to ask about _every_ bloody
>file. This makes it so close to useless that one must use -f all the
>time. Which is VERY VERY BAD, because it makes habitual the "don't do
>any sanity checks at all" mode. Dangerous in the extreme.
On Red Hat, by default:
#
Brian Ashe wrote:
> Hi Cameron,
>
> [snip]
> CS> While we're bitching about rm, anyone know how to fix its prompting behaviour?
>
> I believe you are just being affected by Redhat's decision to make sure only
> experienced users can delete files without prompting. I think this was an
> acceptable
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 17/12/00 at 12:46 Cameron Simpson wrote:
>On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 11:31:09AM -0700, Bill Anderson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>| > > Or my favorite:
>| > > rm -rf .*
>| > > thinking it will remove the current directory OR all the dotfiles in
the
>| >
Hi Cameron,
[snip]
CS> While we're bitching about rm, anyone know how to fix its prompting behaviour?
I believe you are just being affected by Redhat's decision to make sure only
experienced users can delete files without prompting. I think this was an
acceptable, but annoying, decision, since t
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 11:31:09AM -0700, Bill Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > > Or my favorite:
| > > rm -rf .*
| > > thinking it will remove the current directory OR all the dotfiles in the
| > > current directory ... and are root.
| > I assume this will delete everything from the parent
On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Bill Anderson wrote:
> Bret Hughes wrote:
> >
> > Bill Anderson wrote:
> ...
> > > Or my favorite:
> > > rm -rf .*
> > > thinking it will remove the current directory OR all the dotfiles in the
> > > current directory ... and are root.
> > >
> > >:)
> >
> > I assume this will
Bret Hughes wrote:
>
> Bill Anderson wrote:
...
> > Or my favorite:
> > rm -rf .*
> > thinking it will remove the current directory OR all the dotfiles in the
> > current directory ... and are root.
> >
> >:)
>
> I assume this will delete everything from the parent directory down? at least ls .
Bill Anderson wrote:
> Bill Carlson wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Jonathan Wilson wrote:
> >
> > > For everyone who has suggested RAID:
> > >
> > > I like RAID, it's very cool. However, the kind of things are servers currently
>do are not "worthy" of the price. What's valuable here, is not
Bill Carlson wrote:
>
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Jonathan Wilson wrote:
>
> > For everyone who has suggested RAID:
> >
> > I like RAID, it's very cool. However, the kind of things are servers currently do
>are not "worthy" of the price. What's valuable here, is not what it does, but the
>long hour
Jonathan Wilson wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> Now that we've spent a good deal of time setting up our system of servers, it's
> occurred to us that we should be dome something more rigorous then once a week
> manual "cp -a /etc /backup/$DATE"
>
> First off, we do NOT want to buy a commercial app like Arie
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Jonathan Wilson wrote:
> For everyone who has suggested RAID:
>
> I like RAID, it's very cool. However, the kind of things are servers currently do
>are not "worthy" of the price. What's valuable here, is not what it does, but the
>long hours we've spent setting up.
>
> Als
For everyone who has suggested RAID:
I like RAID, it's very cool. However, the kind of things are servers currently do are
not "worthy" of the price. What's valuable here, is not what it does, but the long
hours we've spent setting up.
Also, while RAID and mirroring are great for hard drive fa
At 05:48 AM 12/15/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>..and howdy back to you,
:-)
>Couple of comments:
>1. The reason that back up software vendors can charge for their products is that
>they provide the fallover/failproof features, tested and guaranteed that you require
>without you having to write the
We use BRU and a DAT drive for backups. Commercial I know but it is
reliable. We run a set of daily tapes Mon-Thu and a set of five Friday
tapes.
The last Friday tape of every month gets taken off-site.
Restoration of single files is relatively easy from the supplied X front
end.
We try and avo
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Jonathan Wilson wrote:
> I can think of several considerations:
>
> 1. At least some level of backup needs to happen every day, i.e. at least a back up
>of /etc to a local tarball.
>
> 2. Though we have lots of space and can get more, we can't keep archives forever.
>There
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Jonathan Wilson wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> Now that we've spent a good deal of time setting up our system of servers, it's
>occurred to us that we should be dome something more rigorous then once a week manual
>"cp -a /etc /backup/$DATE"
>
[snip]
>
> 8. It needs to have some sor
..and howdy back to you,
Couple of comments:
1. The reason that back up software vendors can charge for their products
is that they provide the fallover/failproof features, tested and guaranteed
that you require without you having to write the programs yourself (can you
do the level of testing
Jonathan Wilson wrote:
>
> Howdy,
>
> Now that we've spent a good deal of time setting up our system of servers, it's
>occurred to us that we should be dome something more rigorous then once a week manual
>"cp -a /etc /backup/$DATE"
>
> First off, we do NOT want to buy a commercial app like A
Howdy,
Now that we've spent a good deal of time setting up our system of servers, it's
occurred to us that we should be dome something more rigorous then once a week manual
"cp -a /etc /backup/$DATE"
First off, we do NOT want to buy a commercial app like Arieka or BRU. We want to use
Free Sof
32 matches
Mail list logo
