Harry Putnam wrote: > Bob Proulx writes: > > commenting upon. Because while true for non-root for root if it is > > root there isn't any user test. For the root user it is purely a > > Alright... at last. I've been laying for a chance to pedantic right > back at you...
:-) > > check to see if there is at least one 'x' bit set. The user part does > > not matter. So the description really stops at the "checks that it is > > executable" part. Full stop there. > > OMG! Did he really say: "The user part does not matter." Yes. But only if in context! "For the root user it is purely a check to see if there is at least one 'x' bit set. The user part does not matter." Does not matter for root using test. I should have put both of those into one long run-on sentence like I usually do so the context can't be split but didn't that time. :-) > Except when it does ... like when some thoughtful or even sinister > user decides to monkey around with cron. As root? Or as non-root? Hard for a non-root to have leverage against cron. And for the root user it isn't a challenge because all files are readable and writable for root. > So, it has to be said if pedantry is to live and grow... The user part > is very important. Not if you are root using 'test'. It is only important to the poor unwashed masses of non-root processes. :-) Bob
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
