|
spankmeister posted:Because it complains about directories otherwise. uh thats the -r -f is force
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 08:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:02 |
|
|
Powaqoatse posted:uh thats the -r
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 08:31
|
|
|
Powaqoatse posted:uh thats the -r learn 2 linux smdh
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 08:32
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:yes, you need rm -f to get rid of the directories otherwise it will complain about there being directories. -r deletes files in subdirectories but will still complain about, like, /usr being a directory what the hell OS are you using where this is the case because i've never seen rm behave like this ever
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 08:37
|
|
|
ate all the Oreos posted:what the hell OS are you using where this is the case because i've never seen rm behave like this ever if you have write perms to the directory but don't own all the files is the time that comes up for me
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 08:43
|
|
|
Jabor posted:I'm still not sure why people habitually use -f when deleting stuff. encountering systems now and then where rm has been aliased to rm -i, end up just doing -f every time rather than bothering to discover that. meaning to delete a non-writeable file is far more common than being actually warded away from deleting one. not that clear what *not* having -f ever gives you, for example in this case i imagine they could have deleted the database just fine without it
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 08:43
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:yes, you need rm -f to get rid of the directories otherwise it will complain about there being directories. -r deletes files in subdirectories but will still complain about, like, /usr being a directory welp
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 08:44
|
|
|
Cybernetic Vermin posted:encountering systems now and then where rm has been aliased to rm -i, end up just doing -f every time rather than bothering to discover that. meaning to delete a non-writeable file is far more common than being actually warded away from deleting one. not that clear what *not* having -f ever gives you, for example in this case i imagine they could have deleted the database just fine without it i guess it was more the immediate jump from "I want to remove something" to "just rm -rf it I guess". This would 100% not have happened if he'd thought "hmm, maybe the empty data dir is causing problems" -> "rmdir"
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 08:46
|
|
|
Cybernetic Vermin posted:encountering systems now and then where rm has been aliased to rm -i, end up just doing -f every time rather than bothering to discover that. meaning to delete a non-writeable file is far more common than being actually warded away from deleting one. not that clear what *not* having -f ever gives you, for example in this case i imagine they could have deleted the database just fine without it Yeah that's it p much. A lot of distros have rm aliased to rm -i
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 08:47
|
|
|
Billboard Owner posted:"We immediately had to take this computer down off this billboard and replace it with a new one," Withers says, "then we are going to have to go in and buy this managed software that will protect us and that's going to cost me $2000 a year." 1. Someone please find out what software this is because I too want to make thousands of dollars on software displaying JPEGs and say I can 'protect' you 2. This sounds like a Rich Dad response to a computer: "it's not working right throw it out and get a new one"
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 09:12
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:yes, you need rm -f to get rid of the directories otherwise it will complain about there being directories. -r deletes files in subdirectories but will still complain about, like, /usr being a directory no, it will not $ mkdir asdf $ rm asdf rm: asdf: is a directory $ rm -f asdf rm: asdf: is a directory $ mkdir asdf/asdf2 $ rm -r asdf $ ls asdf ls: asdf: No such file or directory -f means 'force', ie never ask for confirmation even when deleting read-only things -r makes rm recursively delete things, including directories. without -r, rm will never delete a directory, not even if you specify -f.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 11:09
|
|
|
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=852751
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 11:50
|
|
|
the unix philosophy ladies and gentlemen 
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 13:29
|
|
|
i'm so sick of parsing structured output so let's all parse text 
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 13:30
|
|
|
Jimmy Carter posted:1. Someone please find out what software this is because I too want to make thousands of dollars on software displaying JPEGs and say I can 'protect' you i wonder how much of that $10,000 was pocketed by the same person who told him he needs a $2000 subscription software service to not connect a billboard directly to the internet
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 13:58
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/gitlabstatus/status/826591961444384768
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
Pppp Ppppppp, Pppp ppppp ppp ppppp?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
Cryptkeeper go p p
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
Cybernetic Vermin posted:encountering systems now and then where rm has been aliased to rm -i, end up just doing -f every time rather than bothering to discover that. meaning to delete a non-writeable file is far more common than being actually warded away from deleting one. not that clear what *not* having -f ever gives you, for example in this case i imagine they could have deleted the database just fine without it yeah their goal here was to delete some files and they would have ignored any warnings presented from not having -f. same as throwing sudo in front of things. they're doing it because they want the command to run and they know sudo will guarantee it and that if they forget to use sudo they'll get an error and then they'll have to use sudo anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
Shinku ABOOKEN posted:the unix philosophy ladies and gentlemen a big ol' trash fire piled on top of smoldering wreckage
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:Cryptkeeper go p p all the way $HOME
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
Jabor posted:I'm still not sure why people habitually use -f when deleting stuff. backtracking to this, i'm not sure why they would use `rm` instead of `mv` other than working too many hours or something
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
8 years of police efforts fell to ransomware
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
the tinfoil hat part of me thinks it was erased on purpose and disguised as ransomware
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
I have no trouble believing that a cop infected his machine with ransomware by clicking on att-hippiegotlippy.aiff.pif
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
For any discussion on anti-virus, here are my rules on how the discussion will go when commented on in HN, Reddit, or in the news comments themselves:
https://www.onmsft.com/news/google-chrome-engineer-says-windows-defender-the-only-well-behaved-av So let's read the comments! quote:I've been using Eset NOD32 for many years and have no regrets. You completely forget you have an AV installed. If I didn't have a NOD32 license I'd definitely rely on WD completely. quote:I've only used Defender and Malwarebytes for the last couple of years. No one single virus...that I know of. quote:No one should bother with norton and mcafee, they're the worst AVs in modern day times. quote:I agree, EVERY SINGLE 3rd party AV is overly-paranoid and keeps false-flagging some of my game mods, it's incredibly annoying. At its "worst" Windows Defender will simply flag it as some kind of "Hack tool" and will ask you if you want to quarantine it or allow it, while 3rd party crap just flags it as Trojan, malware, etc. and removes it without your permission. quote:For me i've got Avira Win 10 and windows defender Win 10 working hand in hand, so for me having at least two AVs one from a trustable AV and one naturally from the OS (both working, without conflict) is all i need. quote:webroot secure anywhere best kept secret and its install exe is half a meg quote:Took my own mother off of Norton... She's such a safe user that she may not even need Defender These rules are going to help me predict any future conversation on AV.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 16:20
|
|
(but it's enabled anyway because security is nice)
|
we need more markov bot projects
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
now that's what i call a sales pitch
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:we need more markov bot projects use generated malware article comments as a covert c&c channel
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
CommunistPancake posted:the tinfoil hat part of me thinks it was erased on purpose and disguised as ransomware
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
Meat Beat Agent posted:now that's what i call a sales pitch RISK FREE
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
while researching Star Micronics' receipt printers today for reasons i came across the claim that they can even print reciepts from within web applications. that doesn't seem right, since it doesn't behave like a regular printer at all... let's see how they do it. http://www.starmicronics.com/printer/technology/webprnt_browser quote:Star’s WebPRNT Browser allows you to print receipts or data from a web browser-based application running on a mobile device to a Star Micronics Bluetooth printer wirelessly. To begin, configure Star’s WebPRNT Browser to open the desired web-based application which supports WebPRNT and print to the desired Bluetooth printer. Once configured, simply pair your mobile device to a Star Bluetooth printer, open your application on Star’s WebPRNT Browser and print directly from the app.  oh. you have to install a custom browser that exposes some weird javascript API and use that. great. anyone wanna place bets on if the --disable-web-security flag will appear in the apk somewhere
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
idk they could probably just intercept the printing call in their browser, format it for a receipt printer, and then pass it back to the normal printing api.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:idk they could probably just intercept the printing call in their browser, format it for a receipt printer, and then pass it back to the normal printing api. no you have to use their special bespoke javascript API/SDK they're doing something much stupider than that
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
printernet of poo poo
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
I don't see that on the browser page but idk it still sounds like they're just formatting existing content. the fact that they do that with javascript vs objc/java doesn't really change much. they probably do it in js specifically so they don't have to rewrite it per platform.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
like I'm guessing its all dom and css modifications to format it for their printers. they could probably do it with a browser extension tho. that would be better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:02 |
|
|
immutability would do it
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 17:22
|
|
