It's not that it's "usefull" NOT to have it in your path, but can
sometimes be a good idea.  For example, if my path for root started
with ./ and I cd'd into a users home directory and then did an ls, if that
user had a program called "ls" in their directory, I would be at their
mercy (and might not even know!).  This also applies to other users as
well, (although I admit, I give normal users a PATH ENDING with ./).

I just wouldn't want to execute something I didn't mean to.  IMHO, my PATH
(especailly for root) should only have trusted directories in it.  Anyway,
I'm in the habbit of typing ./ to run a program in the current
directory...  For casual users with no special priveledgs, it doesn't
usually hurt.  ./ isn't in the PATH by default for a good reason...

Rick

On Mon, 19 May 1997, Andreas Brusinsky wrote:

> Why is it usefull not to have ./ in your PATH?
> 
> At least as long you explore a system and don't exactly know
> where what is placed a usefull thing is to start local commands or
> scripts.
> 
>  
>         Bye   Brusi
> 
>             by           ab2@inf.tu-dresden.de
> 
>           \____/
> 
> 

=========================================================================
Rick Byers                                      Internet Access Worldwide
rickb@iaw.on.ca                                      System Administrator
Welland, Ontario, Canada                                    (905)714-1400
http://www.iaw.on.ca/rickb/                         http://www.iaw.on.ca/