Re:The tale of aux.c
by TheDong on Tuesday September 26, 2017 @12:23AM
(#15336141)
They are less insidious by far. You're really reaching for threads here.
The first, `core`, isn't relevant. `/proc/sys/kernel/core_pattern` configures that value, and by default it's named "core.$PID" nowadays.
That's far better than windows' wart since it's configurable, disableable, etc.
Your second example is even more contrived. If you run a tool which writes files, of course it can overwrite files. I don't complain that in windows when I type "copy foo bar" my "bar" file is overwritten by "foo".
In the same way, someone who voluntarily runs "gcc x.c" or "cat > foo" should not be surprised when "a.out" and "foo" respectively are overwritten.
There's a massive difference between an unconfigurable gotcha based on a filename and an explicit action which writes a file.
The first, `core`, isn't relevant. `/proc/sys/kernel/core_pattern` configures that value, and by default it's named "core.$PID" nowadays.
That's far better than windows' wart since it's configurable, disableable, etc.
Your second example is even more contrived. If you run a tool which writes files, of course it can overwrite files. I don't complain that in windows when I type "copy foo bar" my "bar" file is overwritten by "foo".
In the same way, someone who voluntarily runs "gcc x.c" or "cat > foo" should not be surprised when "a.out" and "foo" respectively are overwritten.
There's a massive difference between an unconfigurable gotcha based on a filename and an explicit action which writes a file.