YOU ARROGANT P---k!!
So a few math and physics courses (probably from mail order, or your nearest
community college) make you all that. I have 2 advanced degrees in
engineering (electronics and computers) yet I think myself no better or
smarter than anyone on this list and neither should you.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Corbeil [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 2:39 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1
>
> Alan Shoemaker wrote:
>
> > Mike....correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you the guy who's
> > been telling some folks in this list that their questions aren't
> > appropriate for this forum and to go ask them in the expert
> > list? Well I think that your response in this thread (quoted
> > below) was not appropriate for the newbie list. The remedy here
> > was very simple and your four rambling paragraphs have simply
> > served to confuse the issue.
> >
>
> Not really, but then maybe I've been accustomed to less than trivial for
> longer
> than I can recall. When I first started learning about computers and
> programming, my ramble wouldn't have caused any problems, but then I also
> had a
> few years of math and physics behind me. Nonetheless, if I think back to
> before
> that, then I wouldn't have been put off by a more thorough explanation.
> Heck, my
> father wanted me to help him remodel the house when I was a mere 8 years
> old;
> therefore, I've been held to above normal expectations for decades.
>
> If you're confused, then don't think that this means that everyone else
> who's a
> newbie would also be confused. As I recall in school, in every course, at
> every
> level, not everyone was equally comfortable with the material.
>
> What I prefer to do when I find an answer or document too complicated, is
> to
> stick with the one I was more comfortable with, as long as it works.
> Otherwise,
> I just ask questions for clarification.
>
> We're not communicating between people in grade 1 of elementary school,
> here;
> therefore, expect some people to provide more thorough answers. When you
> don't
> like it, move on. If newbies seeking help scream in panic, then this will
> definitely help to indicate that what you say is true, but as it is,
> you're
> pretending to be able to speak for them, instead of letting them speak for
> themselves.
>
> As a relative newbie to Linux systems administration, but not to Unix and
> programming, I presented information I learned as a newbie to Linux
> systems
> administration, and based on this, the additional info wasn't out of
> context.
>
> Besides, newbies also need to learn the system and some will catch on very
> quickly, while those who don't, can either ask for clarification, or stick
> with
> the simpler responses they've received.
>
> How complicated do you want to make this?
>
> Some people in the newbie list have already proven that they're not
> newbie; only
> to installing Linux and only in some respects, more in some and less in
> others.
>
> By providing more thorough information in a newbie mailing list, as well
> as more
> elementary answers, this satisfies the entire group. If you're not happy
> with an
> answer which is correct, then skip. If you're not happy with an answer
> which is
> not 100% correct, but along the correct line(s), then correct the errors.
>
> This mailing list is for learning, as far as I'm aware, because getting
> help
> inherently implies learning. Part of accepting to learn is accepting to
> make
> errors or mistakes, and to learn from these.
>
> Why treat people like babies, instead of giving them something to chew on?
>
> People using this list to get help for their employment should subscribe
> to
> professional support mailing lists or resources; therefore, I don't
> perceive
> these mailing lists except for the much more general audience, including
> hobbiests. My case is neither of these, but instead merely learning, to
> merely
> become more marketable, kind of like going to school, but without the
> tuition
> fees and the piece of paper at the end. You'll find people using these
> mailing
> lists for various reasons, but you seem to only want to reduce or restrict
> to
> people who are 100% newbie to computing, which is not the reality.
>
> If you wish to share more about your pedagogical philosophies or
> approaches, then
> feel free. However, I wouldn't bother based on this thread, because what
> I presented is not really above the newbie level. Again, I learned it
> during my
> newbie phase to Linux systems administration, but then I tend to spend a
> fair
> amount of time reading ahead and reading various documentation I come
> across and
> which might be even remotely related. Just because others don't do this,
> doesn't
> mean that this approach isn't relevant to people at the newbie level.
>
> Baby food is nourishing, but it's usually more nourshing when there's an
> adequate
> amount of vitamins and minerals.
>
> I'm not knocking the response to set umask to 0 for the dos partitions, in
> the
> fstab file, but also didn't present anything above newbie level. Hence,
> argumentation or discourse.
>
> mike
>
>
> > Alan
> >
> > Mike Corbeil wrote:
> > >
> > > Alan Shoemaker wrote:
> > >
> > > > Bob....you also need to include umask=0 on that line in
> > > > /etc/fstab.
> > >
> > > Must be a fairly new requirement, or there's a difference in the
> default
> > > umask value between RH 5.1 and Mandrake, because I don't need umask=0
> to be
> > > able to write to my dos partitions. I merely set it to noauto,rw and
> this
> > > is adequate.
> > >
> > > The only reason you'ld need to included umask=0 is because of the
> > > system-wide default value for it, probably defined in /etc/profile or
> > > /etc/bashrc. This may also depend on whether you're allowing only
> root to
> > > write or make changes to the dos partitions, or also allowing users.
> I
> > > don't give users access to my dos partitions, albeit it's a standalone
> > > system and I'm the only user anyway.
> > >
> > > I read somewhere, recently, that umask should be set to 0 in the
> system-wide
> > > login scripts, but that's the opinion of one author of documentation.
> If,
> > > however, you're going to set umask to 0 for the dos partition(s), then
> you
> > > might want to simply set the system-wide value to this anyway, which
> means
> > > you wouldn't need to include this in fstab.
> > >
> > > You'ld need to do some research through various documents which touch
> upon
> > > this subject, before taking my word as gospel.
> > >
> > > mike
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Alan
> > > >
> > > > Cox Family wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > another stumper for me?
> > > > >
> > > > > I just wanted to make a new directory on the DOS partition that I
> could
> > > > > put some WP8 files in (because the apostrophe comes out on the
> printer
> > > > > as something stupid in Linux right now) and it said I didn't have
> > > > > permission. I checked the "fstab" and hda1 includes "user" in
> > > > > permissions. I checked properties by right-clicking on the icon
> and it
> > > > > includes user, group and others for both read and write.
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, so I made the directory as super-user, gave it "a+rwx"
> permissions,
> > > > > and still couldn't save a file in it. Access denied. No permission
> to
> > > > > write or what ever....
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, what am I missing here?
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob
>
>
