Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Message-ID: <42E13914.10204@rclooke.com> Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 14:21:08 -0400 From: Joe Brown User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Cannot write files if they are hidden References: <42E11E4C.3090406@hones.org.uk> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes My opinion of this matter: Hidden should not imply read-only... There are read-only and system attributes which can perform this feat. Why in the world Microsoft decided hidden should be read-only in some of the time (dos edit -- for those of us who've had to use it when necessary) is beyond me. If a file is hidden, it insinuates that an average user should not need access to the file. By hiding it, under normal circumstances that circut is complete, one cannot edit what one cannot find. IMO the read-only flag should be the only one that implies read-only. I conceed that there is logic to the system flag also impliing read-only. I don't see much logic in hidden implying read-only. That implies confusion to a simple state of being. WordPad hidden-file save = access denied NotePad hidden-file save = file saved There is no logic in that... -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/