[tombert]

Yeah, I generally will use `find . -name "<my pattern"` nowadays, just so I can see all the potentially recursive files as well, and then when I'm 100% sure that what I'm doing is good, I will pipe that into xargs or parallel.

My point was that I don't feel like Unix really stops you from doing destructive scary stuff. It seems like it's perfectly happy to let you break your machine.

[doubled112]

Exactly, which is why we check for ourselves instead of expecting it to hold our hand.

Unixy tools tend do what you tell them, nothing more and nothing less. No confirmations, no output if successful, no progress bars, etc.

That's a feature in my mind, but I can see how it is easy to have your day ruined if you're expecting it to ask you again.

[tombert]

I mostly agree, but sometimes I wish that `rm` would have default to "confirm before destroying", and add a flag like `-y` to not prompt, more or less like how `apt` works on Ubuntu.

[Gabrys1]

alias rm="rm -i" alias mv="mv -i"

This was in the default when running in interactive shell for Mandrake Linux (way too many) years ago.

[doubled112]

That's actually a way better experience than no confirmation and confirming each item individually.

[LtWorf]

rm can do that... set an alias to ask to confirm every time.

[tombert]

That's fine on my computer, but if I'm logging into a server I'm not going to do that every time.

[neuromanser]

As much as we all wish it wouldn't be so, TANSTAAFL. What is your suggestion and how does it maintain compatibility with the existing body of code?

[mksybr]

This seems worse then remembering, because you still have to remember that your safe-by-default command is unsafe-by-default everywhere you're not usually.

[doubled112]

rm doesn’t provide an action summary, does it?

Last time I used the interactive option, it needed me to press Y once for every file.

If you have a list of 200 files you’re probably not even reading by the end.

[neuromanser]

I wholeheartedly agree that rm -i is a terrible UI. However: what presentation of 200 paths would you not glaze over?

Microsoft gets lots of praise for maintaining Backwards Compatibility even if it's Bug Compatibility, yet POSIX gets shit for the same.

[doubled112]

The presentation suggested in this very thread would work better for me. I generally pay pretty close attention to package apt/pacman/dnf output because it is all right there in front of me.

Perhaps ironically, if those programs asked me for each change I would just hold Y until it went away. Needing confirmation of each item is why I glaze over.