Shootout: 'rm -Rf /' vs. 'Format C:'

skyshock21 writes "There's an article over at hohle.net about what actually happens when you type the commands Format C: in windows versus rm -Rf / in Linux. Very interesting results indeed. Myths are busted, and hilarity ensues."

A more appropriate shootout

[cyborch]

would be 'mkfs /dev/hda1' vs 'format c:'

sudo password

[emmavl]

In the article he mentions sudo asks the root password, while it's actually asking the password of the user performing the sudo ! So I guess he must have set the root password identical to his user password during the installation.

Get a life

[soul_hk]

Seriously folks,
this proves almost nothing.
This guy really needs to find something better to occupy his time with, ideas include polishing the spoons, re-arranging the sock drawer and cleaning the fridge.

We all know the best way to screw a Windows XP SP2 user is to convince them to turn off the firewall ..

mod me down, see if I care

When ls is hosed...

[ccarr.com]

...use the shell's built in file expansion:

echo *

dissecting frogs..

[mks113]

Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but the thing dies in the process and the innards are discouraging to any but the pure scientific mind.
E. B. White (1899 - 1985)

Re:Yes I rta

[Upphew]

First you claim that you read the article and after that you claim FP... I might believe one or another, but both...

ls

[szo]

He notes that "dir" is a built-in and "ls" is an external, so he could get a directory in windoz, but not on linux. Thats wrong, he could have used "echo *" on linux to get the directory listing.

Szo

Re:rm *

[julesh]

Cause wildcards aren't actually recognised by the kernel. It's entirely up to your shell what characters are used as wildcards, so why should the kernel discriminate against weird shells by only recognising the wildcards used by the bourne and C shells? Or should they just outlaw anything that might be a wildcard? What if I wrote a shell that used 'e' as its wildcard? :)

*boggle* who uses -R

[jhill]

I don't know about you, but I believe in the sysadmin credo, do as little work as possible.

Therefore, any competent sysadmin would never use rm -Rf, they'd use rm -rf, that R takes a lot of effort for me to move my pinky to the shift key.

*sheesh*

Re:Unix file philosophy

[nilsjuergens]

1) Quickly and silently removing the file, while leaving access hidden inside a link in the /proc filesystem

The Unix Way

2) Failing to remove the file (because you're using it right now) and informing you

The Windows Way, also known as "please reboot for the changes to take effect"

The OS really really should _not_ try to second-guess whats wrong or right, just let the user do it. The running application may still enforce certain rules if it has to.

Commands from the wrong era!

[crath]

The problem with the tester's premise is that he is from the wrong era. These punch lines originate from 20 years ago. In those ancient days of computing, the commands did indeed allow a user to effectively (in the case of UNIX) or completely (in the case of MS-DOS) wipe out their file system.

I speak from personal experience on both OSes; 20 years ago, when both OSes were still young.

A fair test of these punch lines can only be executed on MS-DOS 1.x and on one of the *many* UNIX varients from the mid-1980s.

Re:Unix file philosophy

[BlueWonder]

Which is better:

1) Quickly and silently removing the file, while leaving access hidden inside a link in the /proc filesystem
2) Failing to remove the file (because you're using it right now) and informing you
?

1) is better, and it would be better even if /proc didn't exist. There is no reason why every file must be accessible through a directory entry.

Without this mechanism, it would be impossible to replace the directory entry corresponding to an open file atomically, which is a prerequisite for updating running executables or shared libraries.

I reckon removing a file should be harder if it's currently being used.

As I explained, removing a file which currently being used is not only hard, but impossible. Only the corresponding directory entries can be removed.

Re:...vs Magnet vs Tossage

[Bertie]

Why? This guy's in a responsible position, he should be more careful. The buck stops with him.

Re:openbsd rm

[mcmonkey]

Bruce Schneier mentioned that magnetic media can be read using magnetic dust and a microscope...irrespective of the number of overwrites

I'm very skeptical of this claim. He's essentially claiming any magnetic media has an infinite capacity.

For example, take a disk with a capacity of 100 GB. I fill that with data; I read the data.

Then I overwrite the entire disk with another 100 GB of data. Of course I can read the new data. And supposedly with enough time and patience I can read the data that has been overwritten. By overwriting I've doubled the capacity of the media.

When I overwrite the disk again I can read the new data, I can recover the data I've just overwritten, and because this process is irrespective of the number of overwrites, I can retrieve the original data that has been overwritten twice.

This seems to defy some basic laws of physics, but I admit I do not know all the inner workings of magnetic media.

Re:...vs Magnet vs Tossage

[umpa]

Unfortunatly a Taxi driver took the PC with him and managed to boot the machine and found an enormous ammount of very confidentinial information on the HDD.

When you throw something in the garbage, it's still yours. It's not free for the taking.

The taxi driver stole the computer and the "Dutch TV Crime Fighter" bought stolen property. That's criminal.

Re:...vs Magnet vs Tossage

[sumdumass]

Actually the buck should be passed on to a higher position. It is obvious that the guy wasn't computer savy and didn't have the slightest clue. After all he suspected that the harddrive was bad and threw the entire computer out.

The real problem here is that A) there wasn't some sort of tech support in place that would have made that decision instead of him. B)There isn't some sort of policy detailing what can be done with the computers or information/storage devices if somethign like this ever did happen. c) If this computer was his own, he was able to take sensitive data away from the office and place it in an unsecure enviroment. Most users don't know that if you delete somethign it is still there. The fact that there isn't a policy for situations like this or that the policy wasn't known by the employies is verry troubling.

On the other hand, this could have been nothing more then a setup to feed information to the tv reporter and the story about setting the computer to the curb because the hardrive was bad could be a failed attemp to cover it up. It would be interesting to find if the guy recieved any types of payments form the television station or any other affiliation associated with that guy.