`alias rm="rm -i"` considered harmful?
Rise to the top 3% as a developer or hire one of them at Toptal: https://topt.al/25cXVn
--------------------------------------------------
Music by Eric Matyas
https://www.soundimage.org
Track title: Droplet of life
--
Chapters
00:00 `Alias Rm=&Quot;Rm -I&Quot;` Considered Harmful?
00:29 Accepted Answer Score 38
01:05 Answer 2 Score 4
01:32 Answer 3 Score 4
02:04 Answer 4 Score 2
02:33 Answer 5 Score 1
03:40 Thank you
--
Full question
https://superuser.com/questions/384769/a...
--
Content licensed under CC BY-SA
https://meta.stackexchange.com/help/lice...
--
Tags
#bash #rm
#avk47
ACCEPTED ANSWER
Score 38
You're right.
It's bad because you get used to it. If you're on a system that doesn't have it, and you rm
, it immediately starts deleting and you're wondering what's going on.
Many users are used to SSH'ing into different systems; so using lots of different systems, sometimes without personalized user accounts (including aliases) set up, is rather common.
Instead, use e.g. alias rmi='rm -i'
and learn to use that one. If that isn't set up on a different system, you didn't accidentally delete files and can always fall back to typing the full command.
ANSWER 2
Score 4
Like @Daniel said, it's not harmful in and of itself, other than training you to expect it to be there. In fact, it's the default set-up on CentOS (and by extension RHEL, I presume - been too long since I've used one) machines, and it's a massive pain in the tuchus. For the rest of my time at that gig, I typed /bin/rm in order to avoid the "Linux for people who shouldn't have root access" setup.
ANSWER 3
Score 4
I think the big danger is that people might rely on something like this to filter a glob. Imagine you want to delete some images from a directory, but not all of them:
rm -i pics/*.jpg
You could use that to filter the glob manually, which would be completely reasonable. But, if you had aliased it and were using rm
and happened to land in a shell without that alias and try it... you just deleted all your pictures, oops!
Personally I also find this alias to be harmful to my blood pressure ;). But that's just me.
ANSWER 4
Score 2
In addition to what Daniel Beck said, I found myself using -f
to bypass the -i
, which is potentially dangerous as it results in using rm -f
and rm -rf
unnecessarily. Somehow related: a way to prevent rm -rf
issues is this is to create file called "-i" as duscissed in answer of this question:How do I prevent accidental rm -rf /*?.
But again, if that alias wasn't there, I wouldn't use -f, and the whole thing won't be an issue.
ANSWER 5
Score 1
This is much less harmful, based on my experience working with hundreds of users in the past:
rm () # must be a function, must require single answer for all targets
{
ls -FCsd "$@"
local reply ; echo -n 'remove[ny]? ' ; read reply
if [ "_$reply" = "_y" ] ; then
/bin/rm -rf "$@" ; else echo '(cancelled)'
fi
}
- Users are trained to use wildcards correctly, not just '*' and then relying on the y/n prompts to select files
- The conditioning to use correct wildcards often saved the from disaster when they used
rm
in some other context that lacked either this function or therm -i
alias. - I spent less time restoring files where the user typed 'y' one too many times
- Users only have to respond once - providing a sharp positive feedback to their using it
- Control-c interrupts work and are reports as doing nothing
- Not a script, so the real
rm
is untouched, leaving other programs undaunted.
The code style is mostly sh-compatible (except use echo .... | tr -d '\012'
for pre-bash shells), feel free to make your own more bash-specific. I'm not posting to share the code itself, but to share the user experience change that comes with it.