Permissions on a SCO Unix exported file

[Brian K. White]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fairlight" <fairlite at fairlite.com>
To: <filepro-list at lists.celestial.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: Permissions on a SCO Unix exported file


> Four score and seven years--eh, screw that!
> At about Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 04:45:27PM -0400,
> Brian K. White blabbed on about:
>> hehe yer so funny,
>
> I have my humorous moments.  This wasn't one of them.
>
>> and your buttons are so big and easy to press...
>> "Oh my god! 666!  ahhh!!!"
>
> At the point you advocate 'umask 0' or 'chmod 666' as valid solutions, 
> even
> as example code, without using the explicit warning "# DO NOT EVER PUT 
> THIS

Oh get over yourself really. I didn't advocate any such thing and you 
disqualify your own self from preaching by displaying an inability to read. 
Let's try reading and comprehension first, teaching will have to wait until 
some time after that.

My point was that 666 is like a gun or grapefruit or a glass of beer or the 
color green.

It's neither adviseable nor inadviseable, neither safe nor dangerous, 
neither right nor wrong.

You are an utter fruitcake for going on about something without 
acknowledging that that things only have any sort of meaning or ramification 
in some sort of context with something else.
I could kill you with a glass of water. I could save your life with a gun 
(without using it to just kill someone else). Weren't most people like, 5 
when they started to get the first inklings of this?

If you need one user/process to access a file, and a different one to access 
it also, there is not automatically any special reason to devise a 
zillion-bit, one-time-use, cosmic ray detector based random key, channel 
hopping, 5 layer honey pot misdirected, blah blah blah channel to do it.

Since you don't know everything about the rest of the system in which any 
given process is used, it's basically retarded to say things like this or 
that file permission is wrong. Same thing for really anything else about the 
process.

For example, for my part, I wondered about the file name used in the 
example. I try to avoid hard coding any assumptions like "users home dir is 
/u/@id". But for all I know, neither does the original poster. The sample 
posted could just be an example for the purposes of illustration.
Or, maybe he just really needs it to be exactly right where he's putting it 
for any countless number of reasons I don't know but can can imagine.
Thats why I didn't say something stupid like "you fail for using that file 
name!"

Brian K. White    brian at aljex.com    http://www.myspace.com/KEYofR
+++++[>+++[>+++++>+++++++<<-]<-]>>+.>.+++++.+++++++.-.[>+<---]>++.
filePro  BBx    Linux  SCO  FreeBSD    #callahans  Satriani  Filk!