perms on file linux redhat 9 filepro 5.0

[Brian K. White]

Bob Stockler wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 09:56:58AM -0400, Mark Luljak wrote:
>> Simon--er, no...it was Rick Henderson--said:
>>> open is creating a file with 600 owned by filepro.  I need this
>>> file to be readable by everyone.
>>>
>>> pfumask seems not to apply and using the system "chmod
>>> 644"<_filename does not work either.
>>
>> Because the version of bash you have executes system commands as the
>> UID, not EUID.  You can't change perms on what you don't own.
>>
>> Look into sudo, or replace bash with ksh like Brian likes to advise.
>> I would go for sudo, myself..
>
> I tried replacing bash with the "real" KornShell on my Red Hat
> Linux (7.2 or 7.3, I forget) and it broke a lot of the startup
> scripts, so I stayed with bash and employed sudo.
>
> Bob

I _never_ said replace bash with ksh. Especialy not in-place.
I advise simply to _use_ ksh.
IE: install it, as something/bin/ksh, and put #!something/bin/ksh on top of
any scripts you write or re-write to be ksh compatible.

Bash on linux is an annoying perversion in that it doesn't act like everyone
elses plain /bin/sh, and yet on linux /bin/sh is a symlink to /bin/bash and
if you were to put a normal /bin/sh compatible in there (like ksh), that
acted like everyone elses /bin/sh, it certainly would break all kinds of
stuff. Just as if you were to remove /bin/sh from a sun or sco box and make
it a symlink to bash. Linux's "sh" scripts are really all broken "bash"
scripts that need bash specifically, but say they want "sh".

Brian K. White  --  brian at aljex.com  --  http://www.aljex.com/bkw/
+++++[>+++[>+++++>+++++++<<-]<-]>>+.>.+++++.+++++++.-.[>+<---]>++.
filePro BBx  Linux SCO  Prosper/FACTS AutoCAD  #callahans Satriani