Should We Abolish User Access to rm? (2011)

Re:Should We Abolish User Access to rm? (2011) by alperakgun on Tuesday July 30, 2013 @02:40PM (#6129087)

why would a rm wrapper, with move to trash behavior by default, break scripts?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Should We Abolish User Access to rm? (2011) by koenigdavidmj on Tuesday July 30, 2013 @02:44PM (#6129109)

Simply replacing 'rm' with a no-op or error command (or removing it entirely) would break scripts. Trash can would not.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Should We Abolish User Access to rm? (2011) by tankenmate on Tuesday July 30, 2013 @02:55PM (#6129186)

You're right directly it wouldn't break scripts; a whole bunch of stuff starts breaking once the disk fills though.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Should We Abolish User Access to rm? (2011) by TallGuyShort on Tuesday July 30, 2013 @03:29PM (#6129423)

It wouldn't necessarily - it just has to be 100% transparent. A simple alias would probably break a lot of scripts, but if you were very thorough or provided an entirely separate tool for users - that's what I'm suggesting would do this. In reality, I was really just thinking allowed - I think rm's fine as it is. To do this while overcoming the shortcomings I mentioned in DOS's simple approach requires a system more complex than the original problem is worth, IMO.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Should We Abolish User Access to rm? (2011) by mzs on Tuesday July 30, 2013 @07:21PM (#6130795)

I've seen a script that uses flock and rm, it would break.

[ Parent | on HN ]