31–40 of 68 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not what filesystem , it's what OS . FreeBSD. And ZFS, but UFS works the same.
So why did you mentation "Ext2/3/4 and XFS" if filesystem doesn't matter?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So why did you mentation "Ext2/3/4 and XFS" if filesystem doesn't matter?
I don't see what you don't understand. I demonstrated that on FreeBSD created file inherits the group of its parent directory even without SGID, i.e. that FreeBSD exhibits BSD semantics. I also added that if you can have BSD semantics on Ext2/3/4 and XFS if you mount them under Linux with appropriate options.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So why did you mentation "Ext2/3/4 and XFS" if filesystem doesn't matter?
I don't see what you don't understand. I demonstrated that on FreeBSD created file inherits the group of its parent directory even without SGID, i.e. that FreeBSD exhibits BSD semantics. I also added that if you can have BSD semantics on Ext2/3/4 and XFS if you mount them under Linux with appropriate options.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I use this as a basic indicator of someone's Unix competency. Not as a straight binary thing, but if I'm talking to someone (interviewing or maybe debugging something) I've found that if you know about setgid/setuid you have probably been interested enough to know what you are doing.
I've seen interviewers ask for the sticky bit and the difference between hard and soft links as similar shibboleths.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nice or not, you can't talk about directory's SGID behaviour as it was unversal truth, because it's Linux-specific, and even then it's something that can be changed.
Not sure why this is being downvoted. Historically SGID did do something different - and may still in some of the commercial unixes.
Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
One of the most useful group-related tricks (introduced in BSD Unix, I believe) is the setgid bit on a directory. If this is set, new files and subdirectories created within the directory will have the same group as the directory, rather than the group of the process that created them.
I use this as a basic indicator of someone's Unix competency. Not as a straight binary thing, but if I'm talking to someone (interviewing or maybe debugging something) I've found that if you know about setgid/setuid you have probably been interested enough to know what you are doing.
It's funny how easily I suffer tiny papercuts that way, it should be obvious "there's a better way".
I absolutely love Julia Evan's writing. I find her articles / zines to cover interesting and useful technical topics while remaining _extremely_ accessible to me (especially when I was a student)! I really admire her ability to present technical topics in plain language.
I fully agree. Even on topics I feel I know well, she's 1) shown me something I didn't know, and 2) shown me how a "newbie" could see the topic, making it easier for me to help teach/mentor someone else.
"dr--r--r-- 1 bork awesome 6872 Sep 24 11:09 file.txt" This doesn't make sense.
$ ls -l
drwxr-xr-x 2 USER GROUP 4096 Nov 21 11:49 file.txt
$ chmod -xw file.txt
$ for i in {1..180}; do touch file.txt/long_name_$i; done
$ ls -l
dr--r--r-- 2 USER GROUP 12288 Nov 21 11:50 file.txt
File size is a bit off, but that's based on sector size and may be separately configurable - that's a bit beyond my knowledge.
"dr--r--r-- 1 bork awesome 6872 Sep 24 11:09 file.txt" This doesn't make sense.
$ mkdir file.txt $ ls -l drwxr-xr-x 2 USER GROUP 4096 Nov 21 11:49 file.txt $ chmod -xw file.txt $ for i in {1..180}; do touch file.txt/long_name_$i; done $ ls -l dr--r--r-- 2 USER GROUP 12288 Nov 21 11:50 file.txt File size is a bit off, but that's based on sector size and may be separately configurable - that's a bit beyond my knowledge.
"So, for example, if a process is owned by the julia user and julia is in the awesome group, then the process would be allowed to read this file."