advertisement

Hack:   Bringing Trash-Awareness to rm
Subject:   Unwise to replace rm
Date:   2003-04-22 09:29:28
From:   ygor
I applaud your command-line "move-to-the-trash" utility, but as a long-time Unix geek, I would advise caution at changing a basic Unix command.


Myself, I will download this and rename it. Personally, I LIKE having the real "rm" on my Mac so that I can delete things quickly. The Finder's "Empty Trash" is maddening when you are trying to get rid of several thousand little files in a directory tree. "rm -fr" is so much nicer.
Full Threads Newest First

Showing messages 1 through 2 of 2.

  • Unwise to replace rm
    2003-04-27 07:21:48  kerbaugh [Reply | View]

    I couldn't agree more! I wrote the script and I started calling it "rmm" more than a year ago. The site where the script is posted also suggests this now. However, I admit that I didn't change the site until this was posted as I thought interest in it had waned. This Hack certainly started another "lunar cycle"!

    You omitted another big reason for changing the name; you would be amazed at what ends up in the Trash after a major make install!

    Thanks for an excellent suggestion.
  • Unwise to replace rm
    2003-05-13 14:53:49  anonymous2 [Reply | View]

    The Finder's "Empty Trash" is maddening when you are
    trying to get rid of several thousand little files in a directory tree. "rm -fr" is so much nicer.

    Funny, it's the other way around for me; I'd rather be able to move an entire directory into the trash in one stroke (rather than contending with an 'rm -rf' for disk access), then empty the trash when I step away from the system.

    On my debian and IRIX systems I've gotten so lazy that I just move directories into /tmp and let them sit until the next reboot.

    Unfortunately (sic), the kernels nowadays are stable enough that even with big hard drives, /tmp fills up before a crash/hang/forced reboot. This is the kind of problem I want to have, though :-)
Showing messages 1 through 2 of 2.