dan (05/26/82)
References: sdcsvax.2016 A problem with UNIX? I have not accidentally destroyed an important file in several years on UNIX, though I have on RSX. I guess a klutzy user interface creates a need for file versions. UNIX may be a bit eccentric, but it is not klutzy. Programs like cc can (and have) been changed to make sure the output file specification is reasonable. I recommend daily (incremental) backup in case an important file is lost. Any file not worth going to a backup tape for is probably not worth the effort of maintaining a file system with file versions. Dan Strick
bcw (05/27/82)
From: Bruce C. Wright @ Duke University Re: Recovering lost files I suspect that the reason Dan Strick (mcnc!idis!dan) hasn't destroyed an important file in several years on Unix but has on RSX is that hs is more familiar with Unix than he is with RSX. My experience has been otherwise; I've destroyed MANY important files on Unix (and it's a lot easier to do with a terminal which mungs your input before sending it to the system!). This doesn't excuse the rather klutzy user interface on RSX, but the solution proposed doesn't solve the problem very well either: usually the reason you destroy a file is that you are trying to do something to it, which means that probably significant information has been added to it since the last backup (even if it's done daily). Maybe we should have hourly backups? Bruce C. Wright @ Duke University
markp (05/27/82)
When I give an order, I expect it to be OBEYED, not questioned. If I type "rm *", I want those files removed NOW!! A knife is a wonderful tool--it cuts what you tell it to. It's up to YOU not to cut your fingers. Mark R. Paulin
ARPAVAX:CAD:ESVAX:Cory:cc-18 (05/29/82)
"A knife is a wonderful tool--it cuts what you tell it to." So does a chain saw. "rm foo*" versus "rm foo *" is a slip of the finger, or of the mind, and is of the order of using an unguarded chain saw. Would the author of the above show any fear if I habitually used a chain saw in his living room, trusting in me not to fumble to preserve his furniture or his limbs? Furthermore, fingers cut with knives heal. Links cut with "rm foo *" don't. Hence the chain saw is the better analogy. ~r .sig ~p (Aw, goddamit!) Michael Chastain Cory.cc-18@Berkeley (ARPA) ucbvax!Cory:cc-18 (UUCP)
rjk (05/29/82)
I suspect that the overhead involved in idiot-proofing the "creat" syscall
(eventually used by shell ">") or the "rm" program would be prohibitive.
Here are some suggestions:
1) File is "foobar.c", you are developing it and want to protect it. Every
so often you type: save foobar.c which stashes it in a safe deposit
directory. (I'll be glad to post the source to this command)
2) File is writable data. Ok; same thing. After modifying it, save it.
3) File is readonly data. Easy: chmod 444 data_file. At least rm will
now ask you and shell will not create.
As said before, if YOU deem the file THAT important, then take a couple of
seconds to ensure that YOU protect yourself. It's like asking auto
manufacturers to ensure that we can't run into another object unless we
REALLY mean to. (wreck -y??). You learn to drive, no? Then learn to be a
careful UNIX user. It's more powerful that way.
Randy King
..we13!rjk
PS> Look in net.sources. I'll put "save" there. It's been running on
our system for years.geoff (05/31/82)
Enough already about rm! This has been endlessly discussed in the Datamation article and its replies. The obvious solution is to have an environment variable (say, CAUTIOUS) to select alternate behaviour such as asking for confirmation. Geoff Collyer, U. of Toronto Computing Services
pavel (06/02/82)
Better than trying to remember to use a command like 'save' is to set the csh variable 'noclobber', which will at least prevent you from '>'ing into an existing file. If you don't use the csh, then here's another reason to do so. BTW, I don't buy the explanation that people necessarily must remember to be careful; they will always make mistakes and a good environment should either notice dumb things and ask for confirmation or provide a method for 'undoing' such errors. Pavel Curtis
Douglas@sri-unix (06/27/82)
Date: 10 Jun 1982 at 1058-CDT Probably editors should keep ONE backup of any edited file, for non- SCCS users. If you can't recover from sources then you should deliberately back up (data?) files. I can't think of any general backup/recovery scheme that doesn't have at least one application for which it is ill-suited. -------