On 23 April 2010 12:39, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, suvayu ali said:
>> However I failed to find how to see whether any of those bits are set
>> for a file. I tried `ls -l ' in /bin, /usr/bin, and /tmp but didn't
>> notice anything obvious. I also failed to find any appropriate option
Once upon a time, suvayu ali said:
> However I failed to find how to see whether any of those bits are set
> for a file. I tried `ls -l ' in /bin, /usr/bin, and /tmp but didn't
> notice anything obvious. I also failed to find any appropriate option
> for ls to list it either. Am I looking in the w
Hi,
On 23 April 2010 08:52, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Suvayu Ali said:
>> I have never properly understood the leading bit in permissions. (the 0
>> in the 0755) Could you point me to some easily understandable resource?
>
> The leading 3 bits is essentially an add-on to each of the
Once upon a time, Alan Cox said:
> The V7 manual doesn't quite agree with you. The sticky bit simply
> indicates that the code segment for the binary should be kept around in
> memory/swap (fast storage) not discarded. It might get set on a tiny
> number of root apps to tune performance.
The only
On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 18:07 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> The V7 manual doesn't quite agree with you. The sticky bit simply
> indicates that the code segment for the binary should be kept around
> in memory/swap (fast storage) not discarded. It might get set on a
> tiny number of root apps to tune perfo
> Actually it meant the "text" segment (code and constant data) was
> write-protected during execution, and hence could be shared between
> multiple processes executing the same program. In fact that's why it was
> called the "sticky" bit -- the text segment could stick in RAM even if
> the process
On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 10:52 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> In old Unix, the sticky bit on an executable changed the way the
> kernel paged it into and out of RAM, but I don't believe Linux uses
> it.
Actually it meant the "text" segment (code and constant data) was
write-protected during execution, a
Once upon a time, Suvayu Ali said:
> I have never properly understood the leading bit in permissions. (the 0
> in the 0755) Could you point me to some easily understandable resource?
The leading 3 bits is essentially an add-on to each of the user, group,
and other sections. For user and group,
Hi Patrick,
On Friday 23 April 2010 07:54 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> You need Execute permission for directories to be able to look up files
> in them. And Read permission to be able to list them. Typically a home
> directory should be 0755.
>
I have never properly understood the leading bi
On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 01:37 -0500, John H wrote:
> I've had a strange problem occurring lately - after a reboot my home
> folder's contents aren't shown in nautilus or thunar, and ls -a hangs
> when ran as a user. ls -a runs correctly and shows all the files when
> ran as root. I have checked the f
I've had a strange problem occurring lately - after a reboot my home
folder's contents aren't shown in nautilus or thunar, and ls -a hangs when
ran as a user. ls -a runs correctly and shows all the files when ran as
root. I have checked the folder and file permissions for the folder and they
are al
I've had a strange problem occurring lately - after a reboot my home
folder's contents aren't shown in nautilus or thunar, and ls -a hangs when
ran as a user. ls -a runs correctly and shows all the files when ran as
root. I have checked the folder and file permissions for the folder and they
are al
12 matches
Mail list logo
