Linux vs Windows vs DOS future.

Linux vs Windows vs DOS future.

Post by Kevin McKinle » Mon, 04 Aug 1997 04:00:00



 >rm -rf * .bak

Quote:

> >Bang, there goes you File System. Can't do this as a normal user.

> Hence the reason why there is a file called "-i" in all of my critical
> directories:

Okay, I'll bite. How does the "-i" file keep other files from being
deleted?

                                                Kevin

 
 
 

Linux vs Windows vs DOS future.

Post by David LeBla » Mon, 04 Aug 1997 04:00:00



> >rm -rf * .bak
>> >Bang, there goes you File System. Can't do this as a normal user.
>> Hence the reason why there is a file called "-i" in all of my critical
>> directories:
>Okay, I'll bite. How does the "-i" file keep other files from being
>deleted?

The shell expands the * to all the files in the directory.  A '-' is
listed before nearly anything else, so once it is expanded, you have:

rm -rf -i [lots of juicy, critical files] .bak

so now it will sit and ask you about every one.

A very nice trick - Sang Choe is the one who taught me that one.

David LeBlanc           |Why would you want to have your desktop user,

                        |minicomputer-class computing environment?
                        |Scott McNealy

 
 
 

Linux vs Windows vs DOS future.

Post by Nathan Han » Mon, 04 Aug 1997 04:00:00



> > >rm -rf * .bak

> > >Bang, there goes you File System. Can't do this as a normal user.

> > Hence the reason why there is a file called "-i" in all of my critical
> > directories:

> Okay, I'll bite. How does the "-i" file keep other files from being
> deleted?

Because "rm *" expands out to "rm -i bar baz foo ..." and you get
a prompt before deleting each file.

It's a hack. A non-hack approach is available. You can download a
patch which implements the (planned for) u bit in ext2fs. You can
type in something like:

   chattr +u important.document.tex

And when ext2fs unlinks the file (ie from an rm command) it moves
the file into /.wastebasket. You can then recover this file. This
isn't a hack, and has the benefit of working everywhere, not just
the shell. Go to www.linuxhq.com and look at the unofficial patch
page. It'll have instructions on installing the new feature.

--
The idea that an arbitrary naive human should be able to properly use
a given tool without training or understanding is even more wrong for
computing than it is for other tools (eg automobiles, airplanes, guns
or power saws).

 
 
 

Linux vs Windows vs DOS future.

Post by Sang K. Ch » Mon, 04 Aug 1997 04:00:00



:   >rm -rf * .bak
: > >
: > >Bang, there goes you File System. Can't do this as a normal user.
: >
: > Hence the reason why there is a file called "-i" in all of my critical
: > directories:
:
: Okay, I'll bite. How does the "-i" file keep other files from being
: deleted?

Test it out in a subdiretory you don't mind losing.

-- Sang.

 
 
 

Linux vs Windows vs DOS future.

Post by Timothy Watso » Mon, 04 Aug 1997 04:00:00



> It's a hack. A non-hack approach is available. You can download a
> patch which implements the (planned for) u bit in ext2fs. You can
> type in something like:

>    chattr +u important.document.tex

> And when ext2fs unlinks the file (ie from an rm command) it moves
> the file into /.wastebasket. You can then recover this file. This
> isn't a hack, and has the benefit of working everywhere, not just
> the shell. Go to www.linuxhq.com and look at the unofficial patch
> page. It'll have instructions on installing the new feature.

I think that's a hack also. What is REALLY needed is for rm to simply
make a file with a u attribute invisible, and then maybe purgeable
with another command.

--
________________________________________________________________________
T    i    m    o    t    h    y              W    a    t    s    o    n

  __/| Something there is that doesn't love a wall, that wants it down

 
 
 

Linux vs Windows vs DOS future.

Post by James Youngma » Tue, 05 Aug 1997 04:00:00



>  >rm -rf * .bak

> > >Bang, there goes you File System. Can't do this as a normal user.

> > Hence the reason why there is a file called "-i" in all of my critical
> > directories:

> Okay, I'll bite. How does the "-i" file keep other files from being
> deleted?

The above command expands to
        rm -rf -i (lots of files here)
because it is the shell, and not the individual command, that expands
wildcards.

Hence the "-i" ("interactive confirmation") flag is on.

 
 
 

Linux vs Windows vs DOS future.

Post by Nathan Han » Wed, 06 Aug 1997 04:00:00




> > It's a hack. A non-hack approach is available. You can download a
> > patch which implements the (planned for) u bit in ext2fs. You can
> > type in something like:

> >    chattr +u important.document.tex

> > And when ext2fs unlinks the file (ie from an rm command) it moves
> > the file into /.wastebasket. You can then recover this file. This
> > isn't a hack, and has the benefit of working everywhere, not just
> > the shell. Go to www.linuxhq.com and look at the unofficial patch
> > page. It'll have instructions on installing the new feature.

> I think that's a hack also. What is REALLY needed is for rm to simply
> make a file with a u attribute invisible, and then maybe purgeable
> with another command.

I meant it's not a hack because it works at the file system level
and is therefore not "shell magick" or a "file manager option" or
some other such nonsense. It applies in a consistent behaviour on
all applications which use the unlink() system call (ie every one
of them).

The actual mechanism used to implement the undelete feature is in
my mind pretty much immaterial. I don't mind the concept of the u
bit (like the c bit it strikes me as being kinda spiffy). I can't
care less about the ~/.wastebasket thing either. I just have this
strong aversion to "-i files" which work fine for one shell, then
mysteriously fail in another shell, or a desktop file manager, or
a script which goes haywire.

--
The idea that an arbitrary naive human should be able to properly use
a given tool without training or understanding is even more wrong for
computing than it is for other tools (eg automobiles, airplanes, guns
or power saws).

 
 
 

Linux vs Windows vs DOS future.

Post by Eugene O'Ne » Fri, 08 Aug 1997 04:00:00








>>  >rm -rf * .bak

>> > >Bang, there goes you File System. Can't do this as a normal user.

>> > Hence the reason why there is a file called "-i" in all of my critical
>> > directories:

>> Okay, I'll bite. How does the "-i" file keep other files from being
>> deleted?

>The above command expands to
>        rm -rf -i (lots of files here)
>because it is the shell, and not the individual command, that expands
>wildcards.

>Hence the "-i" ("interactive confirmation") flag is on.

yes, but -f overrides -i, so it deletes everything without asking anyway.

-Eugene

 
 
 

Linux vs Windows vs DOS future.

Post by Sang K. Ch » Sat, 09 Aug 1997 04:00:00




: >The above command expands to
: >        rm -rf -i (lots of files here)
: >because it is the shell, and not the individual command, that expands
: >wildcards.
: >
: >Hence the "-i" ("interactive confirmation") flag is on.
:
: yes, but -f overrides -i, so it deletes everything without asking anyway.

I have yet to encounter a version of rm that overrides the 'i' switch
with the 'f' switch.

-- Sang.

 
 
 

Linux vs Windows vs DOS future.

Post by James Crowso » Tue, 12 Aug 1997 04:00:00




> > >rm -rf * .bak

> >> >Bang, there goes you File System. Can't do this as a normal user.

> >> Hence the reason why there is a file called "-i" in all of my critical
> >> directories:

> >Okay, I'll bite. How does the "-i" file keep other files from being
> >deleted?

> The shell expands the * to all the files in the directory.  A '-' is
> listed before nearly anything else, so once it is expanded, you have:

> rm -rf -i [lots of juicy, critical files] .bak

> so now it will sit and ask you about every one.

Doesn't the -f option override -i?
 
 
 

Linux vs Windows vs DOS future.

Post by Todd Bandrowsk » Sat, 16 Aug 1997 04:00:00


Quote:> The idea that an arbitrary naive human should be able to properly use
> a given tool without training or understanding is even more wrong for
> computing than it is for other tools (eg automobiles, airplanes, guns
> or power saws).

Disagree.  Computers are interactive, and should continue to adopt more
features such that interaction with them is no different than interacting
with any other specialist.
 
 
 

Linux vs Windows vs DOS future.

Post by Shaun Rowlan » Sun, 17 Aug 1997 04:00:00





> : >The above command expands to
> : >        rm -rf -i (lots of files here)
> : >because it is the shell, and not the individual command, that expands
> : >wildcards.
> : >
> : >Hence the "-i" ("interactive confirmation") flag is on.
> :
> : yes, but -f overrides -i, so it deletes everything without asking anyway.

> I have yet to encounter a version of rm that overrides the 'i' switch
> with the 'f' switch.

> -- Sang.

The -f overrides the -i depending on the order in which the flags are used:

ts22-8:~$ rm -f -i test
rm: remove `test'? n
ts22-8:~$ rm -i -f test
ts22-8:~$

It is kind of stupid to do rm -f -i though, but in some of my classes rm is
aliased to rm -i for the first time users.  I just reove the alias, but the
others I tell to tack a -f flag (which would be rm -i -f) to really delete a
lot of files.  The -f does override the -i in that case.  The way rm reacts in
the case of these two orders makes perfect sense to me ;-)

--
------------------------------------------

SOC Lab Operator        DL894
http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/~rowland
http://linux.med.ohio-state.edu/rowland
------------------------------------------

Bell Labs Unix -- Reach out and grep someone.

Some people have told me they don't think a fat penguin
really embodies the grace of Linux, which just tells me
that they have never seen an angry penguin charging at
them in excess of 100mph.  They'd be a lot more careful
about what they say if they had."

                -Linus Torvalds announcing Linux 2.0

"NT = No Thanks"
The ".edu" meens i are smart.

 
 
 

Linux vs Windows vs DOS future.

Post by Nathan Han » Mon, 18 Aug 1997 04:00:00



> > The idea that an arbitrary naive human should be able to properly use
> > a given tool without training or understanding is even more wrong for
> > computing than it is for other tools (eg automobiles, airplanes, guns
> > or power saws).

> Disagree.  Computers are interactive, and should continue to adopt more
> features such that interaction with them is no different than interacting
> with any other specialist.

Disagree. Automobiles, airplanes, guns and power saws are interactive
too, and have many features, but you still need training.

People who pretend they can use a computer, just because it's got the
nice help screens and "wizards", are kidding themselves.

They will be inefficient, and they will produce poor results.

Using a tool properly is more than just futzing your way through some
wizard. You need training, understanding, and experience.

Ever read a Word doco that's had columns lined up with spaces? Or has
bullets done with the "o" character?

If they'd had just 1 hours training, they'd be much better off.

--
The idea that an arbitrary naive human should be able to properly use
a given tool without training or understanding is even more wrong for
computing than it is for other tools (eg automobiles, airplanes, guns
or power saws).

 
 
 

Linux vs Windows vs DOS future.

Post by David Griffi » Mon, 18 Aug 1997 04:00:00


:  
: > The idea that an arbitrary naive human should be able to properly use
: > a given tool without training or understanding is even more wrong for
: > computing than it is for other tools (eg automobiles, airplanes, guns
: > or power saws).
: >

: Disagree.  Computers are interactive, and should continue to adopt more
: features such that interaction with them is no different than interacting
: with any other specialist.

Invalid.  Guess what consoles in cars and airplanes are for.  Pull trigger
on gun; gun kicks and goes bang.  Pull trigger on power saw; saw goes
BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.  

--
David Griffith

 
 
 

1. Linux vs Windows vs DOS future.

OK ! Here's my 2 cents worth !

I've been reading allot about LINUX and reports come in. Just look at some of
the reviews I have seen a few bad ones 1993-94 but since 95 almost all of the
reviews are pretty good.

Now here is where I come in. In general in the LINUX community including the
LINUX advocacy group there seems to be a general feeling that LINUX will not
catch up to Windows and that it will never surpass windows as the operating
system of choice for novice users. I used to beleive the same and is now
beginning to doubt my own wizeness in beleiving this.

Who is currently using LINUX ? Who is going to be the desision makers of the
future. They correspond quite heavilly. Yes I beleive that LINUX has a long way
to go to be usefull to (NOVICE users) but by all accounts (incuding press)
LINUX is going there very fast.

Every objection that somebody gives to LINUX is being handled very efficiently
! OK there is some stuff the LINUX community will not give an indifidual on the
other hand it's more of an advantage than a disadvantage.

Let's take some objections and I'd like to here responces on this:
Linux does not have commercial support - Changing fast.

Does not have a single corporation behind it - (Advantage/Disadvantage) nope. Any corporation even Microsoft ;( are allowed to make enancements to the product. Guess what you don't need a central corporation to back you. For that matter if one company does not give you the service you need go to another.

Does not have a standard GUI environment - CDE ? Pretty much. Also there is work going on in OpenDoc standards. etc. etc.

O yes just as a bonus ! Any other companny surpriced you ! Given you the thats smart or that a novell idea ! Ahh well LINUX does that to me all the time !

Wonder why , Wonder when, Linux gonna be the next Desktop OS !

CU

2. Buy a workstation for learning AIX

3. DOS vs. Windows vs. Mac vs. Unix vs. NS

4. KSCD kills audio CD playing on Red Hat 7.2 enigma release on /dev/hdb

5. Linux vs OS2 vs NT vs Win95 vs Multics vs PDP11 vs BSD geeks

6. ipfwadm: setsockopt: Protocol not available

7. Linux Advocacy - Linux vs Windows 2000 vs Be vs OS/2

8. X86 Solaris 2.5 and gcc

9. Linux/XFree speed vs OS/2 vs DOS/Windows

10. OS/2 vs DOS/Windows vs Linux re: Interrupts

11. OS/2 vs DOS vs Windows for memory access

12. *nix vs windows/dos vs macOS structure

13. Linux V.S. Windows NT V.S. Windows 95