sudo to startx??!

[deadly7]

:\
I did it your way. Whatever.  I'm the only one in my family that even remotely knows how to use Linux. My brother's probably used Red Hat once or twice at work, but he doesn't make a habit of it.  He's sorta like War. :P

[MyndFyre]

I don't care if you're the only user, using 0777 isn't something you should be accustomed to. 

QFT.  It's like solving a permissions problem on Windows by assigning the Everyone group Full Access.

It's just not smart.

[iago]

x86] link=topic=6420.msg77289#msg77289 date=1151426329]

I don't care if you're the only user, using 0777 isn't something you should be accustomed to. 

QFT.  It's like solving a permissions problem on Windows by assigning the Everyone group Full Access.

It's just not smart.

Yeah, that's how I eventually fixed Windows' permission problems.  But I think that it's an awful lot easier to assign permissions and access on Linux, because on Windows it seemed absolutely horrible. 

[Joe]

As far as I knew, the UNIX-style permissions were three numbers. What's the 0 mean in 0777?

[Sidoh]

As far as I knew, the UNIX-style permissions were three numbers. What's the 0 mean in 0777?

Octal notation.

[iago]

As far as I knew, the UNIX-style permissions were three numbers. What's the 0 mean in 0777?

Octal notation.

Correct.  Although chmod numbers are always octal, the leading 0 is added for the benefit of anybody reading it. 

The 0 can also be a 1, 2, or 4 for interesting effects.  Try it out!

Hint:

ron@South:~$ chmod 01700 test.txt; ls -l test.txt
-rwx-----T  1 ron users 0 2006-06-27 15:28 test.txt*

ron@South:~$ chmod 02700 test.txt; ls -l test.txt
-rwx--S---  1 ron users 0 2006-06-27 15:28 test.txt*

ron@South:~$ chmod 03700 test.txt; ls -l test.txt
-rwx--S--T  1 ron users 0 2006-06-27 15:28 test.txt*

ron@South:~$ chmod 04700 test.txt; ls -l test.txt
-rws------  1 ron users 0 2006-06-27 15:28 test.txt*

[MyndFyre]

x86] link=topic=6420.msg77289#msg77289 date=1151426329]

I don't care if you're the only user, using 0777 isn't something you should be accustomed to. 

QFT.  It's like solving a permissions problem on Windows by assigning the Everyone group Full Access.

It's just not smart.

Yeah, that's how I eventually fixed Windows' permission problems.  But I think that it's an awful lot easier to assign permissions and access on Linux, because on Windows it seemed absolutely horrible. 

Again... it's because you don't know how to use it.  To me, it seems like Linux permissions are absolutely horrible.  And I even have a passing understanding of chmod!  :P

[iago]

Linux permissions are very simple, but perfectly functional, which I prefer.  Windows gets too complicated and make it too easy to make a mistake.  I've seen veteran Windows users fighting with permissions enough times...

[MyndFyre]

Linux permissions come in the form:

Owner, Everyone else, Root

and

Read, Write, eXecute (or special execute as the case may be).

Right?

NTFS permissions are much more granular, granting access to objects based on the thread context's Principal, which has its own security identity (SID) and group membership, where each group has its own SID.  NTFS permissions also are more granular as to what can be assigned; read, write, execute, and modify are the basic permissions, but there are also others which include the right to take ownership or backup.

So, where you say complicated, I see robust.  :P

[Sidoh]

I like Linux permissions, but if I were running a server for a larget network, I think I would prefer NTFS.

[Chavo]

I like to change peoples passwords at random, thats permissions for you!

(note: I don't really do that, but oddly enough a certain client accused a coworker of doing so :))