Re: bash-completion pros/cons (was: Re: Need commands)
On Tue, 16 Jun 2020, l0f4r0@tuta.io wrote:
[dd]
16 juin 2020 à 13:23 de wooledg@eeg.ccf.org
It's flaky and full of errors. (Many of these errors end up on the
bash mailing lists as bug reports in bash, but nope, they're from
bash-completion.) It bloats bash, using a lot of memory, and taking
extra CPU and wall-clock time (may not be noticeable on modern hardware).
That said, many people still find its benefits outweight its problems,
and are quite happy with it. You get to make your own choice.
Thanks.
Proofreading the final command is not forbidden, right? ^^
That is always a good idea. And I prefer the mistakes that I find, the
ones I correct, and the ones I overlook, to be my own.
Because I learn best from my own mistakes.
Maybe sometimes completion is not working as it should, nothing is
perfect, but globally I think that it saves time more than its
wastes.
For those it suits, I am glad the package is available.
It's probably more a conceptual/philosophical approach here ;)
Agreed.
--
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12518471 alexk already addressed
your concern: your keys, preferably issued by your org's CA (instead
of being generated by you) should be short-lived, oftentimes for the
duration of your "work shift". The tools listed above support this.
Reply to: