cool, what a great explanation. but i've always though of linux being an operating system that gives great power to the user...and the user being someone quite knowledgable. i know when i need executable permissions on a file and i'm disappointed that linux (or i guess bash) wants to protect me from making a "common" mistake (isn't that a windows philosophy...;). the reason why i bring this up is that i have a samba share called public_mp3s shared to 5 win/linux computers. windows doesn't like to play mp3's (by double clicking at least) that don't have the executable attribute set, so i wanted all files created in that folder to be created with executable permissions. oh well, can't win em all, i guess...=)
thanks for the great info, christopher On Thursday 25 April 2002 12:40 am, Cameron Simpson wrote: > On 14:57 24 Apr 2002, christopher j bottaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | why doesn't umask set a file's executable attribute? for example, if i > | do: umask 000 > | touch test > | > | test's permissions are rw-rw-rw- > | why is that? > > Umask is applied to the permissions given to the open() system call. > Almost all apps hand the mode 0666 to this call, because they're > creating data files of one kind or another. Only compilers (well, the > find link phase) passes 0777 to open(), because it _knows_ it's making > an executable. > > So this is noraml and correct. And desirable, because it means arbitrary > files aren't misused as executables until you say so with an explicit > chmod. > > Cheers, _______________________________________________ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
