indra@ashirvad.amd.com (Indra Singhal) (10/12/90)
In SunOS, a umask 022 would create directories with 755 permission and
all files with 644 permission.
In PC-NFS if you do a: net umask 022, even files are created with 755
permissions which is not good. And if you try using 'net umaks 133' any
directories you make are unusable.
Has anyone noticed this? Am I doing something wrong?
Email please. Thanks.
--
iNDRA | indra@amd.com or {ames apple uunet}!amd!indra
| (Indra Singhal) (408) 749-5445; Advanced Micro Devices
| MS 167; Box 3453; 901, Thompson Pl., Sunnyvale, CA 94088rhoward@msd.gatech.edu (Robert L. Howard) (10/12/90)
In <1990Oct12.003227.8315@amd.com> indra@ashirvad.amd.com (Indra Singhal) writes: >In SunOS, a umask 022 would create directories with 755 permission and >all files with 644 permission. >In PC-NFS if you do a: net umask 022, even files are created with 755 >permissions which is not good. And if you try using 'net umaks 133' any >directories you make are unusable. >Has anyone noticed this? Yes. > Am I doing something wrong? Nope. There is nothing you can do (wrt getting the umask to work as under SunOS). I *hope* this will be fixed in the next release of PC-NFS (hint, hint). What we do is set the umask to 133 (or 113, etc.) and then have a batch file to make directories on the network drives. All you need is... ---------------nmd.bat--------------- @echo off mkdir %1 chmod a+x %1 ------------------------------------- >Email please. Thanks. I think (hope) this is general interest enough to be posted. Robert -- | Robert L. Howard | Georgia Tech Research Institute | | rhoward@msd.gatech.edu | MATD Laboratory | | (404) 528-7165 | Atlanta, Georgia 30332 | | UUCP: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,ut-ngp}!gatech!msd!rhoward |
geoff@bodleian.East.Sun.COM (Geoff Arnold @ Sun BOS - R.H. coast near the top) (10/12/90)
Quoth indra@ashirvad.amd.com (Indra Singhal) (in <1990Oct12.003227.8315@amd.com>): #In SunOS, a umask 022 would create directories with 755 permission and #all files with 644 permission. # #In PC-NFS if you do a: net umask 022, even files are created with 755 #permissions which is not good. Why do you regard it is "not good"? What problems does it cause? Just curious. #And if you try using 'net umask 133' any #directories you make are unusable. Fixed in the next release. -- Geoff Arnold, PC-NFS architect, Sun Microsystems. (geoff@East.Sun.COM) -- *** "Now is no time to speculate or hypothecate, but rather a time *** *** for action, or at least not a time to rule it out, though not *** *** necessarily a time to rule it in, either." - George Bush ***
rhoward@msd.gatech.edu (Robert L. Howard) (10/12/90)
In <2878@jaytee.East.Sun.COM> geoff@bodleian.East.Sun.COM (Geoff Arnold @ Sun BOS - R.H. coast near the top) writes: >Quoth indra@ashirvad.amd.com (Indra Singhal) (in <1990Oct12.003227.8315@amd.com>): >#In SunOS, a umask 022 would create directories with 755 permission and >#all files with 644 permission. ># >#In PC-NFS if you do a: net umask 022, even files are created with 755 >#permissions which is not good. >Why do you regard it is "not good"? What problems does it cause? I'm not the original poster but here is why I consider it "not good". If I use PC-NFS *and* do a lot of logging on to the UNIX host, I tend to mount my UNIX account home directory to my PC (in my case to H:) so that I can get to the files easily. Now I can share mail boxes with Lifeline and elm, I can use my PC editor on my source code files, I can use some nice DOS utilities to do file organization, deletion, backup, etc.... I personally don't like to see everyfile that is touched by DOS suddenly set to have execute turned on. Why? 1) It is confusing when I do an ls on the UNIX side, I might have a mental lapse and execute my 'todo' list (generating lots of errors). 2) In the case of logging on from a workstation and using something like filemanager all the icons suddenly go to executable shell script rather that {c,fortran} source, postscript file, etc. 3) (a nit) it is just plain unsightly to have all those "*"'s after every file name. >#And if you try using 'net umask 133' any >#directories you make are unusable. >Fixed in the next release. Thanks! (I don't suppose you will let us know when that will be? :-) Robert -- | Robert L. Howard | Georgia Tech Research Institute | | rhoward@msd.gatech.edu | MATD Laboratory | | (404) 528-7165 | Atlanta, Georgia 30332 | | UUCP: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,ut-ngp}!gatech!msd!rhoward |
indra@brahms.amd.com (Indra Singhal) (10/14/90)
geoff@bodleian.East.Sun.COM (Geoff Arnold @ Sun BOS - R.H. coast near the top) writes: >Quoth indra@ashirvad.amd.com (Indra Singhal) (in <1990Oct12.003227.8315@amd.com>): >#In PC-NFS if you do a: net umask 022, even files are created with 755 >#permissions which is not good. >Why do you regard it is "not good"? What problems does it cause? >Just curious. Well, for one, all files created from the PC show up with their execute bit set and when doing an ls -F in UNIX, show up with the trailing '*'. All those executables which aren't really... And just that any file that shows up with executable bits in UNIX should really be executable! Nothing major... more aesthetic than functional, in my view atleast. >#And if you try using 'net umask 133' any >#directories you make are unusable. >Fixed in the next release. Thank you!! -- iNDRA | indra@amd.com or {ames apple uunet}!amd!indra | (Indra Singhal) (408) 749-5445; Advanced Micro Devices | MS 167; Box 3453; 901, Thompson Pl., Sunnyvale, CA 94088