3 ms·
> That's a poor advice for the scripts you call relatively frequently. Why? It protects you from someone else (cough updated packages introducing new commands
by Joker_vD 9mo ago
> That's a poor advice for the scripts you call relatively frequently.
Why? It protects you from someone else (cough updated packages introducing new commands cough) picking a name you already use.
- mathfailure 9mo agoBecause it's useless extra typing. People try to narrow commands down to two fucking chars and you suggest to type the whole goddamn path!
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- Dylan16807 9mo agoNobody suggested typing whole paths.
- mathfailure 9mo agoThey did. Just not explicitly.
- Joker_vD 9mo agoI've asked you why prepending paths to PATH instead of appending was a bad idea. How is having typing full paths has anything to do with it?
- Dylan16807 9mo agoThe only situation where you'd need to type a full path is when you have a name collision. But the suggestion to not worry about collisions with unknown system binaries also said to put the script folder first. In that situation running the script doesn't need a full path, and you won't be running the unknown system binary. So you won't be typing full paths. Please explain the non-explicit suggestion you see, because I don't see it. It's clear that "adding your script directory in front of the PATH" means a one time edit to .bashrc or equivalent, right? In normal use you're not typing it.