In article <20070325225847.GA4602@nimenees.com>,
Eric Haszlakiewicz  <erh@nimenees.com> wrote:
>On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 12:36:22PM -0500, Brian A. Seklecki wrote:
>> 
>> >  	/home/paul/bin:/bin:/sbin:/usr/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/X11R6/bin:\
>> >  	/usr/pkg/bin:/usr/pkg/sbin:/usr/games:/usr/local/bin: \
>> >  	/usr/local/sbin:.
>> 
>> I once had my life (well, life of my livelihood) threatened by a
>> very .....imposing (politically correct) female system administrator for
>> putting "." in my $PATH.   
>> 
>> It not being present overrides one of the natural security mechanisms
>> present in UNIX-like environments.
>
>I think you got something backwards there.  You mean that when it _is_
>present a "natural security mechanism" is overridden, right?
>(that being: you won't accidentally run an incorrect program by being
> in the wrong directory)
>Or am I misunderstanding what you're trying to say?

This whole thing seems silly to me:
You either override the path and set it the way you want it in a
script, or you leave it alone and assume that the user knows what
he is doing.
If you want to complain about a users path having relative components
in it, why don't you remove them?

christos
christos