On 2/2/22 16:28, admin4 wrote:
> but the UNIX philosophy is to simplify, simplify, simplify,and pretty
> much follow that principle and it works wonders :)
>
> what about simplifying the usability & build in fail safes?
You have a point that simplicity is good and nice.
Often the GNU command li
On 2/2/22 18:28, admin4 wrote:
> nah my mistake now got it:
sorry for your loss, again.
> find . -name *.doc -exec rm -rf {} \; # does the same as find . -name
> *.doc -delete
These are also bad examples for find(1) invocations:
please use proper quoting, and better get used to refine the search
nah my mistake now got it:
simplify in this context means: find should get rid of the -delete
("simplify")
because, (UNIX Philosophy)
* *Write programs that do one thing and do it well.*
* *Write programs to work together.*
* *Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a univer
me so lucky: it's only 603283 jpgs to sort manually...
Update of bug #61910 (project findutils):
Open/Closed:Open => Closed
Fixed Release:None => 4.9.0
___
Follow-up Comment #4:
https://savannah.
no worries, this will be the last feedback to this problem-challenge.
Beyond clearly documenting how to use the tool (which I think we do)
I'm not sure what to do about the risk that admin4 is pointing out.
but the UNIX philosophy is to simplify, simplify, simplify,and pretty
much follow that
On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 9:08 PM admin4 wrote:
> # DANGER! THIS DELETES ALL (!!!) FILES IN THE CURRENT DIRECTORY! (NOT ONLY
> THE -name “*FILES*” SPECIFIED )
> find . -delete -name "*f25020672.avi*" <- why does it do that? it is like it
> completely ignores anything after -delete X-D (and just de
On 2/1/22 23:15, admin4 wrote:
> get the point, left to right processing of arguments, okay but, when
> someone reads or writes this one-liner:
>
> find . -delete -name "*f25020672.avi*"
>
> nobody would have guessed that it will delete everything (send this one liner
> to 10x friends and ask t
