Hi,
Off-topic, but I struck an oddity trying to help a friend using Ubuntu
send a wayward Firefox back to un-munged condition. I laboriously gave
him instructions over the phone to type in:
rm -rfd .cache/mozilla/firefox
Only to have it chuck a hissy fit and claim the options were invalid.
I
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Tim wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Off-topic, but I struck an oddity trying to help a friend using Ubuntu
> send a wayward Firefox back to un-munged condition. I laboriously gave
> him instructions over the phone to type in:
>
> rm -rfd .cache/mozilla/firefox
>
> Only to have
On 19Jan2018 19:18, Kenneth Wolcott wrote:
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Tim wrote:
Off-topic, but I struck an oddity trying to help a friend using Ubuntu
send a wayward Firefox back to un-munged condition. I laboriously gave
him instructions over the phone to type in:
rm -rfd .cache/mo
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 10:03 PM, Tim wrote:
>
> Off-topic, but I struck an oddity trying to help a friend using Ubuntu
> send a wayward Firefox back to un-munged condition. I laboriously gave
> him instructions over the phone to type in:
>
> rm -rfd .cache/mozilla/firefox
>
> Only to have it chuc
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 2:10 AM, Cameron Simpson wrote:
>
> Also: "which rm" should show what executable is being used, and the
> bash "which" IIRC also shows if an alias or function is involved (I'm
> a zsh person myself).
There's no "which" builtin in bash. IIRC, only tcsh and zsh have one.
On
Den 2018-01-20 kl. 10:34, skrev Tom H:
> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 2:10 AM, Cameron Simpson wrote:
>>
>> Also: "which rm" should show what executable is being used, and the
>> bash "which" IIRC also shows if an alias or function is involved (I'm
>> a zsh person myself).
>
> There's no "which" built
On Sat, 2018-01-20 at 04:34 -0500, Tom H wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 2:10 AM, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> >
> > Also: "which rm" should show what executable is being used, and the
> > bash "which" IIRC also shows if an alias or function is involved (I'm
> > a zsh person myself).
>
> There's no
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 5:19 AM, Jon Ingason wrote:
> Den 2018-01-20 kl. 10:34, skrev Tom H:
>> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 2:10 AM, Cameron Simpson wrote:
>>>
>>> Also: "which rm" should show what executable is being used, and the
>>> bash "which" IIRC also shows if an alias or function is involved
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 5:30 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan
wrote:
> On Sat, 2018-01-20 at 04:34 -0500, Tom H wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 2:10 AM, Cameron Simpson wrote:
>>>
>>> Also: "which rm" should show what executable is being used, and the
>>> bash "which" IIRC also shows if an alias or func
On Sat, 2018-01-20 at 08:52 -0500, Tom H wrote:
> > Personally I just use 'type' rather than 'which'.
>
> "type" is the shortest and, like the others, it works for most commands.
When you want to know what Bash would actually use as the command,
'type' is the most direct way to find out.
poc
___
Tim:
>> rm -rfd .cache/mozilla/firefox
>>
>> Only to have it chuck a hissy fit and claim the options were
>> invalid.
Tom H:
> Without the "-d"?
Tried that, didn't like it (I did need to remove directories). In the
end we got it done, but I was more curious if anyone knew why it didn't
work. I
On 01/21/2018 01:57 AM, Tim wrote:
Without the "-d"?
Tried that, didn't like it (I did need to remove directories).
You don't need "-d" to remove directories. The "-r" option will do
that. The "-d" option removes *empty* directories. "rm" will not
delete directories without an option ind
On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 4:57 AM, Tim wrote:
> Tim:
>>>
>>> rm -rfd .cache/mozilla/firefox
>>>
>>> Only to have it chuck a hissy fit and claim the options were
>>> invalid.
>
> Tom H:
>> Without the "-d"?
>
> Tried that, didn't like it (I did need to remove directories).
It's not needed. "-fr" wil
Allegedly, on or about 21 January 2018, Gordon Messmer sent:
> You don't need "-d" to remove directories. The "-r" option will do
> that. The "-d" option removes *empty* directories.
Well, that'd explain the success in deleting things (they weren't
empty). Though I would have expected the comm
Allegedly, on or about 21 January 2018, Tom H sent:
> Was it an ownership problem?
Never found out. Just eventually got him to do what was needed. It
was bad enough having the basic output of "ls" read to me over the
phone, without trying to have permissions dictated, too.
--
[tim@localhost ~]
15 matches
Mail list logo
