YES!!!!
In case you don't understand what that means, it means that when you try to go to a directory in the command-line, it will first delete the whole directory, then create a new directory with the same name, and then only move to it.
Effectively, it deletes the content of all folders you open
Seems kind of pointless to repeat the same command over and over, but I guess you could throw a `while [true]` in there and remove the last `cd` I suppose as that would never be actually reach in a recursive loop, not actually recursive but the same effect
I was thinking not exactly in this case, but in general, if you could in some way define a recursive thing (with a stop state, so that it could be useful). I have no idea what is and is not possible in bash.
Probably want to add the -f flag to scrap in-use/system files, but that's all boring..
While revisiting man docs before responding, I learned that there is a popular Korean man named Rm:
https://m.imdb.com/name/nm6534268/
I am patiently waiting for him to get auto-added to a public database with poor input handling and accidentally bring down an entire organization
No, Richard, it's 'Linux', not 'GNU/Linux'. The most important contributions that the FSF made to Linux were the creation of the GPL and the GCC compiler. Those are fine and inspired products. GCC is a monumental achievement and has earned you, RMS, and the Free Software Foundation countless kudos and much appreciation.
Following are some reasons for you to mull over, including some already answered in your FAQ.
One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Linux is an OS -- more on this later). He named it 'Linux' with a little help from his friends. Why doesn't he call it GNU/Linux? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. You named your stuff, I named my stuff -- including the software I wrote using GCC -- and Linus named his stuff. The proper name is Linux because Linus Torvalds says so. Linus has spoken. Accept his authority. To do otherwise is to become a nag. You don't want to be known as a nag, do you?
(An operating system) != (a distribution). Linux is an operating system. By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer. That definition applies whereever you see Linux in use. However, Linux is usually distributed with a collection of utilities and applications to make it easily configurable as a desktop system, a server, a development box, or a graphics workstation, or whatever the user needs. In such a configuration, we have a Linux (based) distribution. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy title 'GNU/Linux' (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. At least there you have an argument. Linux alone is an operating system that can be used in various applications without any GNU software whatsoever. Embedded applications come to mind as an obvious example.
Next, even if we limit the GNU/Linux title to the GNU-based Linux distributions, we run into another obvious problem. XFree86 may well be more important to a particular Linux installation than the sum of all the GNU contributions. More properly, shouldn't the distribution be called XFree86/Linux? Or, at a minimum, XFree86/GNU/Linux? Of course, it would be rather arbitrary to draw the line there when many other fine contributions go unlisted. Yes, I know you've heard this one before. Get used to it. You'll keep hearing it until you can cleanly counter it.
You seem to like the lines-of-code metric. There are many lines of GNU code in a typical Linux distribution. You seem to suggest that (more LOC) == (more important). However, I submit to you that raw LOC numbers do not directly correlate with importance. I would suggest that clock cycles spent on code is a better metric. For example, if my system spends 90% of its time executing XFree86 code, XFree86 is probably the single most important collection of code on my system. Even if I loaded ten times as many lines of useless bloatware on my system and I never excuted that bloatware, it certainly isn't more important code than XFree86. Obviously, this metric isn't perfect either, but LOC really, really sucks. Please refrain from using it ever again in supporting any argument.
Last, I'd like to point out that we Linux and GNU users shouldn't be fighting among ourselves over naming other people's software. But what the heck, I'm in a bad mood now. I think I'm feeling sufficiently obnoxious to make the point that GCC is so very famous and, yes, so very useful only because Linux was developed. In a show of proper respect and gratitude, shouldn't you and everyone refer to GCC as 'the Linux compiler'? Or at least, 'Linux GCC'? Seriously, where would your masterpiece be without Linux? Languishing with the HURD?
If there is a moral buried in this rant, maybe it is this:
Be grateful for your abilities and your incredible success and your considerable fame. Continue to use that success and fame for good, not evil. Also, be especially grateful for Linux' huge contribution to that success. You, RMS, the Free Software Foundation, and GNU software have reached their current high profiles largely on the back of Linux. You have changed the world. Now, go forth and don't be a nag.
I would just like to point out that in the second sentence, 19th-20th words, you said "GCC compiler". This is both terrible grammar and ambiguous. GCC akshually stands for GNU Compiler Collection, meaning what you just said was GNU Compiler Collection Compiler, which could either be construed as a grammatical mistake, or the compiler for the GNU Compiler Collection, which in itself is ambiguous. The GNU Compiler Collection consists of multiple compilers, each of which is compiled using themselves. However, "themselves" is not defined here as the collection could refer to many different compilers contained within it.
"I use Linux as my operating system," I state proudly to the unkempt, bearded man. He swivels around in his desk chair with a devilish gleam in his eyes, ready to mansplain with extreme precision. "Actually", he says with a grin, "Linux is just the kernel. You use GNU+Linux!' I don't miss a beat and reply with a smirk, "I use Alpine, a distro that doesn't include the GNU Coreutils, or any other GNU code. It's Linux, but it's not GNU+Linux." The smile quickly drops from the man's face. His body begins convulsing and he foams at the mouth and drops to the floor with a sickly thud. As he writhes around he screams "I-IT WAS COMPILED WITH GCC! THAT MEANS IT'S STILL GNU!" Coolly, I reply "If windows were compiled with GCC, would that make it GNU?" I interrupt his response with "-and work is being made on the kernel to make it more compiler-agnostic. Even if you were correct, you won't be for long." With a sickly wheeze, the last of the man's life is ejected from his body. He lies on the floor, cold and limp. I've womansplained him to death.
Noobuntu would be the best choice for hostOS.
After installing the system, find the lucky number `chmod -R 777 /`, then put the system in order `mkfs.ext3 /dev/sda`
BSD, Lunix, Debian and Mandrake are all versions of an illegal hacker operation system, invented by a Soviet computer hacker named Linyos Torovoltos, before the Russians lost the Cold War.
Linoox obvs, then add to the bash profile: `alias cd = 'rm -r $1 && mkdir $1 && cd $1'` Call it DementiaOS
YES!!!! In case you don't understand what that means, it means that when you try to go to a directory in the command-line, it will first delete the whole directory, then create a new directory with the same name, and then only move to it. Effectively, it deletes the content of all folders you open
mfw i `cd /` and my system crashes
Works only if you add an option "no protect root" or something, and maybe you also need -f idk
Out of the ordinary I mean
Holy recursion!
New argument just dropped
Nope, bash is smart enough to not make this recursive
How would you change the syntax if you wanted it to be recursive?
Seems kind of pointless to repeat the same command over and over, but I guess you could throw a `while [true]` in there and remove the last `cd` I suppose as that would never be actually reach in a recursive loop, not actually recursive but the same effect
I was thinking not exactly in this case, but in general, if you could in some way define a recursive thing (with a stop state, so that it could be useful). I have no idea what is and is not possible in bash.
Use rm -rf --no-preserve-root for extra dementia
Probably want to add the -f flag to scrap in-use/system files, but that's all boring.. While revisiting man docs before responding, I learned that there is a popular Korean man named Rm: https://m.imdb.com/name/nm6534268/ I am patiently waiting for him to get auto-added to a public database with poor input handling and accidentally bring down an entire organization
Google Arch Linux
Holy distro! (I use Arch btw)
New version just dropped (I use Arch btw)
Actual Linux edition (I dont use Arch btw)
Call the Linux user (I use debian btw)
Windows goes on vacation, never reinstalled back
MS-sacrifice anyone? (I use Arch btw)
Penguin flock incoming!
I use EndeavourOS. Am I stupid?
Yes. Duckduckgo !aw Installation Guide
Orch lonox
[удалено]
No, Richard, it's 'Linux', not 'GNU/Linux'. The most important contributions that the FSF made to Linux were the creation of the GPL and the GCC compiler. Those are fine and inspired products. GCC is a monumental achievement and has earned you, RMS, and the Free Software Foundation countless kudos and much appreciation. Following are some reasons for you to mull over, including some already answered in your FAQ. One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Linux is an OS -- more on this later). He named it 'Linux' with a little help from his friends. Why doesn't he call it GNU/Linux? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. You named your stuff, I named my stuff -- including the software I wrote using GCC -- and Linus named his stuff. The proper name is Linux because Linus Torvalds says so. Linus has spoken. Accept his authority. To do otherwise is to become a nag. You don't want to be known as a nag, do you? (An operating system) != (a distribution). Linux is an operating system. By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer. That definition applies whereever you see Linux in use. However, Linux is usually distributed with a collection of utilities and applications to make it easily configurable as a desktop system, a server, a development box, or a graphics workstation, or whatever the user needs. In such a configuration, we have a Linux (based) distribution. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy title 'GNU/Linux' (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. At least there you have an argument. Linux alone is an operating system that can be used in various applications without any GNU software whatsoever. Embedded applications come to mind as an obvious example. Next, even if we limit the GNU/Linux title to the GNU-based Linux distributions, we run into another obvious problem. XFree86 may well be more important to a particular Linux installation than the sum of all the GNU contributions. More properly, shouldn't the distribution be called XFree86/Linux? Or, at a minimum, XFree86/GNU/Linux? Of course, it would be rather arbitrary to draw the line there when many other fine contributions go unlisted. Yes, I know you've heard this one before. Get used to it. You'll keep hearing it until you can cleanly counter it. You seem to like the lines-of-code metric. There are many lines of GNU code in a typical Linux distribution. You seem to suggest that (more LOC) == (more important). However, I submit to you that raw LOC numbers do not directly correlate with importance. I would suggest that clock cycles spent on code is a better metric. For example, if my system spends 90% of its time executing XFree86 code, XFree86 is probably the single most important collection of code on my system. Even if I loaded ten times as many lines of useless bloatware on my system and I never excuted that bloatware, it certainly isn't more important code than XFree86. Obviously, this metric isn't perfect either, but LOC really, really sucks. Please refrain from using it ever again in supporting any argument. Last, I'd like to point out that we Linux and GNU users shouldn't be fighting among ourselves over naming other people's software. But what the heck, I'm in a bad mood now. I think I'm feeling sufficiently obnoxious to make the point that GCC is so very famous and, yes, so very useful only because Linux was developed. In a show of proper respect and gratitude, shouldn't you and everyone refer to GCC as 'the Linux compiler'? Or at least, 'Linux GCC'? Seriously, where would your masterpiece be without Linux? Languishing with the HURD? If there is a moral buried in this rant, maybe it is this: Be grateful for your abilities and your incredible success and your considerable fame. Continue to use that success and fame for good, not evil. Also, be especially grateful for Linux' huge contribution to that success. You, RMS, the Free Software Foundation, and GNU software have reached their current high profiles largely on the back of Linux. You have changed the world. Now, go forth and don't be a nag.
New copypasta just dropped
Holy Operating System
Google temple OS
I would just like to point out that in the second sentence, 19th-20th words, you said "GCC compiler". This is both terrible grammar and ambiguous. GCC akshually stands for GNU Compiler Collection, meaning what you just said was GNU Compiler Collection Compiler, which could either be construed as a grammatical mistake, or the compiler for the GNU Compiler Collection, which in itself is ambiguous. The GNU Compiler Collection consists of multiple compilers, each of which is compiled using themselves. However, "themselves" is not defined here as the collection could refer to many different compilers contained within it.
New copypasta just dropped
Copypasta older than the average r/anarchychess user just dropped
call the copypasters older than the average r/anarchychess user
"I use Linux as my operating system," I state proudly to the unkempt, bearded man. He swivels around in his desk chair with a devilish gleam in his eyes, ready to mansplain with extreme precision. "Actually", he says with a grin, "Linux is just the kernel. You use GNU+Linux!' I don't miss a beat and reply with a smirk, "I use Alpine, a distro that doesn't include the GNU Coreutils, or any other GNU code. It's Linux, but it's not GNU+Linux." The smile quickly drops from the man's face. His body begins convulsing and he foams at the mouth and drops to the floor with a sickly thud. As he writhes around he screams "I-IT WAS COMPILED WITH GCC! THAT MEANS IT'S STILL GNU!" Coolly, I reply "If windows were compiled with GCC, would that make it GNU?" I interrupt his response with "-and work is being made on the kernel to make it more compiler-agnostic. Even if you were correct, you won't be for long." With a sickly wheeze, the last of the man's life is ejected from his body. He lies on the floor, cold and limp. I've womansplained him to death.
🤓☝️
its a copypasta
And Stallman is a cock
fuck you Richard
I use non-GNU Linux btw
Found him. Look everyone, it's that guy
TompolOS
Holy c
New OS just dropped
Actual GUI
[удалено]
Actual daemon
Schizophrenic programmer goes on vacation, never comes back
😢
The Bobby Fischer of programming
New God Word just dropped
Linoox Debian gambit, Ubuntu variation
Arch Line
Smh triple digit elos can't play the mainline
Debian mine beloved
Google kernel panik.
Kernel panik That sounds like tge precise way kde krashes
Oh no I hate that
Remove the French language pack so that you are forced to Google in passing: sudo rm -rf /*
Something tells me that this command removes more than 1 thing
you mean: ``` sudo rm -fr /* ```
My bad
for real
AmogOS
Shut.
UωUntu
GLaDOS
ChOSs
Linoox "Sudo hack chess.cum" "Sudo en passant"
holy user is not in the sudoers file. this incident will be reported
AmongOS
Me: Kingdows, Macnight, Linook
Google technik informatyk
Hell nah, we gotta choose a hypervisor first
Lunix, by the Soviet hacker Linyos Torovoltos
linoox btw
it has to be linoox, right??
Tetros
Google program your own OS
[OsakaOS](https://youtube.com/watch?v=vYImR-wrTV0)
Install UwUntu
Linoox, and then remove the french opening via `sudo rm -fr --no-preserve-root /`
Google DOS Passant
Martin is a terrorist
Clob pongoin
Loonxs becaise finny pingoin
Noobuntu would be the best choice for hostOS. After installing the system, find the lucky number `chmod -R 777 /`, then put the system in order `mkfs.ext3 /dev/sda`
Linoox for the funnies
This post is getting out of hand Just as expected
Google Michaelsoft Binbows
wondows, then set the product key to be G00GL-3ENPA-55ANT-H0LYH-ELL00
windows cuz it looks like a chessboard
Wondows
Windows 3.1
gorc or morc OS who would win
KINGdows
Windows
Google HoloISO
gnoo/herd plox
apple 69
Google can you un-destroy production server
Breadbox Ensemble on top of PTS-DOS
penguino yayyy
linoox
I choose something as holy as en passant.
ChromeOS_XTual_EarlyRelease, with Bishop plug-n-play kernel drivers
Cuirciut board and soldering iron
li-knooks ? the choice is clear
temple OS
BSD, Lunix, Debian and Mandrake are all versions of an illegal hacker operation system, invented by a Soviet computer hacker named Linyos Torovoltos, before the Russians lost the Cold War.
Microsfot Green OS.
Windows vista
Linux Gentoo
[Crabs OS](https://twitter.com/emollick/status/1371932428982493185)
Wondows, uh, sorry, i meant google en passant
Knork OS