Protection from the dreaded "rm -fr /"

[Sam]

>> As for protecting against "rm -rf / foo" as a typo for "rm -rf /foo", I 
>> don't mind if we offer protection against that; but I see no reason at all 
>> to "protect" root from "rm -rf /".  It's fair to say that somebody who 
>> types that means it, and it's fair to go as far as we can in satisfying it.
>
> I think you just nailed it on the head right here... if you say "rm -rf /" 
> you probably mean it, but if you say "rm -rf / foo" you probably oopsed 
> (pretty good bet, since rm / makes asking to rm foo redundant).  How about 
> checking if there is more than one argument, and if one of those arguments is 
> "/", fail.  If there is only one argument, even if it is "/", assume the user 
> knows what he is doing and proceed normally.

Why not let -i override -f?  Then the usual alias bit works
fine for those who want it.  For times when you really want
the -f, you can type /bin/rm -rf.  Or `which rm` -rf.  Or
put it in a shell script and call it rmf.

There are a lot of ways to skin this properly without resorting
to hacks making the tool smarter than the user.

Sam