Rainer Weikusat <rainerweikusat@???> wrote:

> "Whoever disagrees with me MUST either have a hidden, maliscious agenda
> or be out of his mind" is a pretty standard way to (attempt to) handle
> a situation where someone ran out of arguments but doesn't feel like
> admitting that.

Not at all. I have a perfectly sound argument. You are stubbornly trolling that users deserve to have their hardware bricked.
I know you won't accept that, but all your arguments come down to "no protection, the user is responsible, if he makes a mistake then tough". I, and others, are of the opinion that there are quite reasonable measures that could be made the default which a) wouldn't break anything in a way that wasn't easy to deal with*, and b) would provide "reasonable" protection against the problem.

Since you are so certain that documentation is sufficient, can you show me in the man page for "rm" where it mentions the possibility of bricking the hardware ?



* As in, yes we understand it breaks X, there's a genuine reason for doing it, but here are ways to fix that. As opposed to certain camps where "we don't care what get broken and it's nothing to do with us to solve it" seems to be the mantra.