RFC: alias tar="tar --backup" ?

[William Tracy]

> Yes. Well, the user expects the computer to do what it is told, too, but
> doesn't realize that without flags like --backup or -k, he has
> implicitly told the computer to go ahead and write over anything it sees.

Apparently tar -w gives you interactive mode. Unfortunately, when it
finds an existing file, all it asks is:

extract 'path/to/filename'?

It doesn't tell you that the file already exists, or why it's even
asking you permission.

alias tar tar -w *might* still work, though, especially if we patched
tar to ask a more helpful question (overwrite 'file'?
[yes/no/all/none]).

> >     Commands entered within a Terminal screen may not work as you
> >     expect. Sometimes a command will overwrite files without warning
> >     you. If you are unsure, use the 'man' command to find out.

Could be implemented in via echo commands in bashrc. However:

> Too general to be useful, IMO. And, in this specific example, the user
> would have to give it a pretty thorough reading to discover this trait.

I kind of have to agree. :-P

> > Of course a completely different approach would be a file system
> > capable of roll-back, and in doing that, a user may well benefit from
> > the backup services such a solution offers.

Wouldn't that be awesome? :-)

Apparently ZFS actually implements this.

* wishes that Linux could have ZFS support*

Actually, I off and on wonder if it would be possible to implement a
filesystem over Subversion, and then just mount /home on that. I'm
sure there's all kinds of gotchas with that idea, but it would be
really cool.

--
William Tracy
afishionado at gmail.com -- wtracy at calpoly.edu

"Whatever the missing mass of the universe is, I hope it's not cockroaches!"
                -- Mom


-- 
William Tracy
afishionado at gmail.com -- wtracy at calpoly.edu

"Whatever the missing mass of the universe is, I hope it's not cockroaches!"
                -- Mom