Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!spool.mu.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!hsdndev!cmcl2!adm!news
From: X903%DMAFHT1.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu ( Marc Wachowitz)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re:  unix undelete ?????
Message-ID: <26671@adm.brl.mil>
Date: 25 Apr 91 12:29:22 GMT
Sender: news@adm.brl.mil
Lines: 29

On Wed, 24 Apr 91 11:59:22 EDT GC-ACCURATE Arthur W. Protin Jr. said:
...
>NEVER EVER make "rm" an alias for something less dangerous than "/bin/rm"
>People get used to using the command in a friendlier form and wreck havoc
>when they get into a normal environment.
>When you want a "delete" that protects you, use "delete" or "del" or
>"RM" or ........
Well, perhaps you misunderstood what I proposed. I didn't think of
replacing "/bin/rm", I meant you should replace it in your usage,
just like Mr. Protin said :-)
Depending on your personal taste, you may define it as a shell alias
command, just to avoid typing "rm" where you would - as you'll for sure
notice some seconds later - have liked "delete" (or whatever you call
it).
I'd never replace any system tool if I can avoid it (except perhaps
extended backwards-compatible replacements to change the behaviour of
otherwise unconfigurable tools, which shouldn't exist anyway).
...
>Of course, such a replacement for "rm" won't remove all use that we
>might have from an undelete utility.  Most of the files that I destroy
>I do with implicit deletes.
Implicit deletes? I'd never let something delete my files implicitly.
If you are referring to such things as the GNU-Emacs dired-mode,
just change the effect of the command.

These are just my personal views, modify as applicative to you.
Don't start a flame war, it isn't worth it :-)

Marc