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