Protection from the dreaded "rm -fr /"

[Giorgos Keramidas]

On 2004-10-05 10:37, Chris Dillon <cdillon at wolves.k12.mo.us> wrote:
> I think you just nailed it on the head right here... if you say "rm
> -rf /" you probably mean it, but if you say "rm -rf / foo" you
> probably oopsed (pretty good bet, since rm / makes asking to rm foo
> redundant).  How about checking if there is more than one argument,
> and if one of those arguments is "/", fail.  If there is only one
> argument, even if it is "/", assume the user knows what he is doing
> and proceed normally.

I no longer have any interest in working towards any sort of change
related to this thread.  Please do not Cc: me when replying.

Thanks,

Giorgos