What is the difference between rm -r and rm -f? - Super User What do you mean they give the same result? rm -r emptydir removes that directory, rm -f emptydir does not These are two completely different command line options, each doing whatever its documentation says is doing
In a bash shell, is `rm -rf . *` better safer than `rm -rf The better solution is rm -rf * Shell globs (wildcards) are expanded before the command is executed, and there is no significant restriction on file names, which means that certain classes of filename can affect the command execution itself
Is there a scenario where rm -rf --no-preserve-root is needed? In that case, rm -rf --no-preserve-root will delete the system in the chroot environment but will leave yours intact I am sure there are more possible reasons, but in general it seems a very reasonable approach that my system allows me to do whatever I want with it