On Fri, Sep 10, 1999 at 10:45:22AM -0700, Gandhi woulda smacked you wrote:
> Has anyone given any thought to these files not being named something
> that resembles [^s]*core*?  What happens to the nightly system check
> that goes out and looks for core files?  You want to run 'file' on
> every single file on your disk and have it report back on that?  That's
> ludicrous.

The template could be enforced to end with 'core'. It's easy to implement.

> 
> If there is no core format set, the default should be %n.core;
> obviously gcore is going to produce %p.core.  Whatever format
> you choose, ".core" should be appended to it.  This makes it
> a bit more difficult to achieve a file named "core", but we're
> obviously making a tradeoff here.
> 
> Has it also occurred that the message (core dumped) may prove
> a mite confusing to a willing-to-learn neophyte (as we all were
> once) whose sysadmin has set the core format to "/cores/%u/%n.%p"?
> We'd have to go back and change all the shells/progs which tell you
> that a core is dumped to tell you *where* it left the core file.

I'd say it's up to the sysadmin to inform the users of stuffs like this.
A system can already customised enouth to give some surprises to
unexperimented users (just mount /home and /tmp noexec :).

--
Manuel Bouyer <bouyer@antioche.eu.org>
--