Re: [newbie] The effect of 'chgrp' is not pemanent?

2004-12-19 Thread Richard Urwin
On Sunday 19 Dec 2004 2:39 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi. > > I've noticed that, strangely, the effect of the command 'chgrp' > is not permanent: I did > ># chgrp rodolfo /* Since this is the newbie list, Do not do this. If it was the expert list I'd say "Are you sure you know what you're

Re: [newbie] The effect of 'chgrp' is not pemanent?

2004-12-19 Thread Todd Slater
On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 03:39:15PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi. > > I've noticed that, strangely, the effect of the command 'chgrp' > is not permanent: I did > ># chgrp rodolfo /* > > and then > > # ls -l / > > and got the following output: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] rodolfo]# l

[newbie] The effect of 'chgrp' is not pemanent?

2004-12-19 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi. I've noticed that, strangely, the effect of the command 'chgrp' is not permanent: I did # chgrp rodolfo /* and then # ls -l / and got the following output: [EMAIL PROTECTED] rodolfo]# ls -l / total 52 drwxr-x--x 2 root rodolfo 4096 Dec 17 16:05 bin/ drwxr-x--x 3 root rodolfo