Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: Missing commands/incorrect behaviour after update X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3 Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 19:14:16 +0100 Message-ID: <2C5637A6A7CE844EA3C0A94565479F529B050F@dest-as20-002.int.bauer-partner.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Eriksson, Michael" To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id gACIEWr19682 Randall > >Well, 0666 does not seem like a good idea, since it gives > everyone the > >right to change the files. Of course the main use of umask > is to restrict > >access from group and other. > > It's a very good idea and has been "the right way" (or, to use a > now-archaic phrase, "The Unix Way (tm)") ever since version 7 > Unix when > umask was introduced. The whole point of writing the code to > give new files > full access (0666 or 0777) is so that the user is in complete > control by > virtue of the "umask." > > You do understand that the umask value is "subtracted" > (bit-wise) from the > file mode specified by the program creating the new file > system entity, right? No, I was actually under the impression that is was substracted from 777. Thank you for setting me straight. (That comes working with windows...) Michael -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/