Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!gatech!rebel!didsgn!allan From: allan@didsgn.UUCP (allan) Newsgroups: comp.cog-eng,comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: more rm insanity Message-ID: <123@didsgn.UUCP> Date: Mon, 30-Nov-87 11:11:24 EST Article-I.D.: didsgn.123 Posted: Mon Nov 30 11:11:24 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 4-Dec-87 05:48:59 EST References: <1257@boulder.Colorado.EDU> Organization: Digital Design Inc., Atlanta, GA USA. Lines: 17 Summary: But whose problem is it? Xref: mnetor comp.cog-eng:338 comp.unix.wizards:5717 In article <1257@boulder.Colorado.EDU>, cdash@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Charles Shub) writes: > yesterday, i got bit by rm. I was remotely logged in to a system over a network > and had created a bunch of temp files. to delete them, i naturally typed in > "rm t*" only the %$*#&^#@ network managed to drop the "t" and you all know what > happened then. ... > The point is that there are two things a command interface could do: > 1) protect us from our own stupidity (i'm not convinced it should) > 2) protect us from "extended system" errors like dropping a character > but i'm not sure how you separate the two. Isn't this a classic reliability problem for the network? Your "extended system" problem is really a faulty network problem. If your network (what type is it?) had supported reliable transfers, it would have detected the lost "t". Allan G. Schrum ..!gatech!rebel!didsgn!allan