Re: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1
On Apr 20 Gerald E Peck wrote: That's all I'll say to the list. If you really have the time we can play in E-Mail. Place me in the 'cc'-field; I'm actually enjoying this ;-) -- Rial Juanhttp://nighty.ulyssis.org e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Belgiumtel:(++32) 89/856533 ulyssis system admininstrator http://www.ulyssis.org The little critters in nature; they don't know they're ugly. That's very funny... A fly marying a bumble-bee... Sign the petition at http://www.libranet.com/petition.html Help bring us more Linux Drivers
Re: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1
Kit, please... I'm an atheist and a metal freak. No softie-talk *cough* for me please ;-) On Apr 20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just couldn't let this one escape...a word or two This is exactly why God HATES pride and ego... 1. because it stops us from becoming all that God wants us to be. 2. because it eventually leads to arguments...and hate for each other. "satan"...is the enemy here...not yourselfs...realise this... and stop this bickering. -- Rial Juanhttp://nighty.ulyssis.org e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Belgiumtel:(++32) 89/856533 ulyssis system admininstrator http://www.ulyssis.org The little critters in nature; they don't know they're ugly. That's very funny... A fly marying a bumble-bee... Sign the petition at http://www.libranet.com/petition.html Help bring us more Linux Drivers
RE: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1
I certainly do not think I am sharper, better, smarter, less destructive than anyone else. That's what I was trying to tell you if you care to listen. You just don't think outside that little bubble you call a life do you? -Original Message- From: Mike Corbeil [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 5:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1 Pittman, Merle wrote: 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. Having advanced degrees does not necessarily make you a sharper human being, except that you know more about the technical business you studied in. Humans are not reduceable to merely technological terms. There's a hell of a lot more to being a totally balanced human being than an ego trip over advanced degrees in technology. Don't know if you're noticed or not, but technology has also been much the cause for the serious degradation of the natural environment on this planet; therefore, before waving your pieces of paper, think first, because these aren't impressive, no where as much as the continuous destruction of the natural environment of this planet is. If only people with might high pieces of paper in technical studies could only figure out that simple reality. My arrogance is only your interpretation. I wonder if someone who waves highly advanced pieces of paper can figure out the simple meaning of this; however, to give you a little assistance, what it means is that I'm not at all arrogant and it's merely in your eyes that I am. What I am, though, is FRANK and a no-bs type. If you prefer bs, pc crap, then by all means, continue to live that way, if that's how you like to perceive the world; however, don't ever pretend your two pieces of paper to be of any true significance to me, for reasons as stated above. That's what I have to think about many so-called highly educated types. I don't reduce humanity to mathematics or science, but instead take the opposite pov, which is to put these sciences to the service of HUMANITY. Hence I BELIEVE in PEOPLE, far more than I believe in the sciences we discover and develop, but use so atrociously. If you don't grasp this truth, then believe me when I tell you, you'll never be convincing, not to me. If you knew how to read, then you'ld have realized very clearly that I wasn't bragging, but only describing my pov and reasoning to illustrate. T'was not at all for bragging, because, as per above. mike -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: Mikecorrect 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
RE: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1
Jeepers, I came here for info ang get a friggin' soap opera to boot. What a discusion group!!! At 10:12 AM 4/20/00 -02-30, you wrote: I certainly do not think I am sharper, better, smarter, less destructive than anyone else. That's what I was trying to tell you if you care to listen. You just don't think outside that little bubble you call a life do you? -Original Message- From: Mike Corbeil [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 5:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1 Pittman, Merle wrote: 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. Having advanced degrees does not necessarily make you a sharper human being, except that you know more about the technical business you studied in. Humans are not reduceable to merely technological terms. There's a hell of a lot more to being a totally balanced human being than an ego trip over advanced degrees in technology. Don't know if you're noticed or not, but technology has also been much the cause for the serious degradation of the natural environment on this planet; therefore, before waving your pieces of paper, think first, because these aren't impressive, no where as much as the continuous destruction of the natural environment of this planet is. If only people with might high pieces of paper in technical studies could only figure out that simple reality. My arrogance is only your interpretation. I wonder if someone who waves highly advanced pieces of paper can figure out the simple meaning of this; however, to give you a little assistance, what it means is that I'm not at all arrogant and it's merely in your eyes that I am. What I am, though, is FRANK and a no-bs type. If you prefer bs, pc crap, then by all means, continue to live that way, if that's how you like to perceive the world; however, don't ever pretend your two pieces of paper to be of any true significance to me, for reasons as stated above. That's what I have to think about many so-called highly educated types. I don't reduce humanity to mathematics or science, but instead take the opposite pov, which is to put these sciences to the service of HUMANITY. Hence I BELIEVE in PEOPLE, far more than I believe in the sciences we discover and develop, but use so atrociously. If you don't grasp this truth, then believe me when I tell you, you'll never be convincing, not to me. If you knew how to read, then you'ld have realized very clearly that I wasn't bragging, but only describing my pov and reasoning to illustrate. T'was not at all for bragging, because, as per above. mike -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: Mikecorrect 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
Re: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1
I appear to be getting all the email from your forum/discussion group. Like 100's a day. What is the forum called so that I can try to get it fixed ?? Bryn Jones -Original Message- From: Jim Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, April 20, 2000 2:22 PM Subject: RE: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1 Jeepers, I came here for info ang get a friggin' soap opera to boot. What a discusion group!!! At 10:12 AM 4/20/00 -02-30, you wrote: I certainly do not think I am sharper, better, smarter, less destructive than anyone else. That's what I was trying to tell you if you care to listen. You just don't think outside that little bubble you call a life do you? -Original Message- From: Mike Corbeil [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 5:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1 Pittman, Merle wrote: 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. Having advanced degrees does not necessarily make you a sharper human being, except that you know more about the technical business you studied in. Humans are not reduceable to merely technological terms. There's a hell of a lot more to being a totally balanced human being than an ego trip over advanced degrees in technology. Don't know if you're noticed or not, but technology has also been much the cause for the serious degradation of the natural environment on this planet; therefore, before waving your pieces of paper, think first, because these aren't impressive, no where as much as the continuous destruction of the natural environment of this planet is. If only people with might high pieces of paper in technical studies could only figure out that simple reality. My arrogance is only your interpretation. I wonder if someone who waves highly advanced pieces of paper can figure out the simple meaning of this; however, to give you a little assistance, what it means is that I'm not at all arrogant and it's merely in your eyes that I am. What I am, though, is FRANK and a no-bs type. If you prefer bs, pc crap, then by all means, continue to live that way, if that's how you like to perceive the world; however, don't ever pretend your two pieces of paper to be of any true significance to me, for reasons as stated above. That's what I have to think about many so-called highly educated types. I don't reduce humanity to mathematics or science, but instead take the opposite pov, which is to put these sciences to the service of HUMANITY. Hence I BELIEVE in PEOPLE, far more than I believe in the sciences we discover and develop, but use so atrociously. If you don't grasp this truth, then believe me when I tell you, you'll never be convincing, not to me. If you knew how to read, then you'ld have realized very clearly that I wasn't bragging, but only describing my pov and reasoning to illustrate. T'was not at all for bragging, because, as per above. mike -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: Mikecorrect 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
Re: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1
On Thu, 20 Apr 2000, you wrote: I appear to be getting all the email from your forum/discussion group. Like 100's a day. What is the forum called so that I can try to get it fixed ?? Bryn Jones Hello Bryn, I'll not copy and resend all that pseudo intellectual crap, we in the "mainstream" have better manners than certain "eggheads" that are better left to their own devices. Please ignore them and maybe they will go away! One of them said a day or two ago they wouldn't go to the trouble of opening attachments to read them. Best reason I've heard so far to use attachments! Spam comes in all flavors! Vern -- Vernon Stilwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] RR#3 Box 168 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hardinsburg, KY 40143 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Located on a dusty dirt road, running roughly parallel to the information highway. Awaiting BellSouth's efforts to bridge the "digital divide". Country penguins rock when given the chance.
Re: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1
On Thu, 20 Apr 2000, you wrote: I appear to be getting all the email from your forum/discussion group. Like 100's a day. What is the forum called so that I can try to get it fixed ?? Bryn Jones Now there's a bit of good old Welsh common sense - isn't it. I suggest that, if people want a flame war, they nip over to egroups and start up a group. I imagine that 99% of the people on this list aren't the slightest bit interested in this continuing string and regard the participants as totally childish. Can we get back to the basic principles of this list which is mutual help and support with MANDRAKE. -- Regards John the Nadger http://www.mklinux.co.uk http://www.nadger.uklinux.net
Re: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1
I just couldn't let this one escape...a word or two This is exactly why God HATES pride and ego... 1. because it stops us from becoming all that God wants us to be. 2. because it eventually leads to arguments...and hate for each other. "satan"...is the enemy here...not yourselfs...realise this... and stop this bickering. "Stephen F. Bosch" wrote: "Pittman, Merle" wrote: 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. Oh MAN! Is this going to turn into a battle of egos now? For someone with... oh, never mind. -Stephen- -- ===KompuKit=== Kit Goins ICQ# 7110071 [EMAIL PROTECTED]Lowell, Mass. Web Designer http://kitdesigns.bizhosting.com WebServer:http://kompukit.dyndns.org (Server Runs between M-F 6pm-12am,S+S 12pm-12am EST) ===KompuKit===
Re: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1
LOL!!! vern wrote: On Thu, 20 Apr 2000, you wrote: I appear to be getting all the email from your forum/discussion group. Like 100's a day. What is the forum called so that I can try to get it fixed ?? Bryn Jones Hello Bryn, I'll not copy and resend all that pseudo intellectual crap, we in the "mainstream" have better manners than certain "eggheads" that are better left to their own devices. Please ignore them and maybe they will go away! One of them said a day or two ago they wouldn't go to the trouble of opening attachments to read them. Best reason I've heard so far to use attachments! Spam comes in all flavors! Vern -- Vernon Stilwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] RR#3 Box 168 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hardinsburg, KY 40143 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Located on a dusty dirt road, running roughly parallel to the information highway. Awaiting BellSouth's efforts to bridge the "digital divide". Country penguins rock when given the chance. -- The Penguins are coming!!! Michael Holt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1
Mikecorrect 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. Alan Mike Corbeil wrote: Alan Shoemaker wrote: Bobyou 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
Re: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1
Alan Shoemaker wrote: Mikecorrect 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: Bobyou 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
Re: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1
Mikenever mind, you just don't seem to get it. I consider this subject closed. Alan Mike Corbeil wrote: Alan Shoemaker wrote: Mikecorrect 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 [snip] [snip] argumentation or discourse. mike Alan Mike Corbeil wrote: Alan Shoemaker wrote: Bobyou 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
RE: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1
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: Mikecorrect 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
Re: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1
Actually, Mike's response was right on the mark, he gets it more than you think. I for one want to learn. I have learned from the (mostly) good folks on this list. Valjean On Wed, 19 Apr 2000, Alan Shoemaker wrote: Mikenever mind, you just don't seem to get it. I consider this subject closed. Alan Mike Corbeil wrote: Alan Shoemaker wrote: Mikecorrect 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 [snip] [snip] argumentation or discourse. mike Alan Mike Corbeil wrote: Alan Shoemaker wrote: Bobyou 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
Re: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1
Pittman, Merle wrote: 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. Having advanced degrees does not necessarily make you a sharper human being, except that you know more about the technical business you studied in. Humans are not reduceable to merely technological terms. There's a hell of a lot more to being a totally balanced human being than an ego trip over advanced degrees in technology. Don't know if you're noticed or not, but technology has also been much the cause for the serious degradation of the natural environment on this planet; therefore, before waving your pieces of paper, think first, because these aren't impressive, no where as much as the continuous destruction of the natural environment of this planet is. If only people with might high pieces of paper in technical studies could only figure out that simple reality. My arrogance is only your interpretation. I wonder if someone who waves highly advanced pieces of paper can figure out the simple meaning of this; however, to give you a little assistance, what it means is that I'm not at all arrogant and it's merely in your eyes that I am. What I am, though, is FRANK and a no-bs type. If you prefer bs, pc crap, then by all means, continue to live that way, if that's how you like to perceive the world; however, don't ever pretend your two pieces of paper to be of any true significance to me, for reasons as stated above. That's what I have to think about many so-called highly educated types. I don't reduce humanity to mathematics or science, but instead take the opposite pov, which is to put these sciences to the service of HUMANITY. Hence I BELIEVE in PEOPLE, far more than I believe in the sciences we discover and develop, but use so atrociously. If you don't grasp this truth, then believe me when I tell you, you'll never be convincing, not to me. If you knew how to read, then you'ld have realized very clearly that I wasn't bragging, but only describing my pov and reasoning to illustrate. T'was not at all for bragging, because, as per above. mike -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: Mikecorrect 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
Re: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1
Alan Shoemaker wrote: Mikenever mind, you just don't seem to get it. I consider this subject closed. Maybe for you, but if others wish to provide more educational information, then believe me when I tell you, I'll be glad to read it. You can just skip the thread. Never prevent others from learning topics that are useful and are relevant to newbies to Linux. Some don't want to read it and some do; therefore, those who don't can just skip, while letting those who wish to learn more, gain the knowledge others are willing to share. This rule of thumb should be so simple and straightforward that no one should ever feel any need to comment about whether a thread should closed, because you're not the God over what others care to share and learn, especially when it's related to the mailing list. If it was a topic unrelated to the mailing list, or more suitable for the other mailing list(s), then I wouldn't disagree, but the topic is related to this mailing list, and a couple of others have shown their support, one by also saying that he/she likes to learn and the other providing more knowledge. If you can explain what's wrong with that, then I'm prepared to read your pov. mike Alan Mike Corbeil wrote: Alan Shoemaker wrote: Mikecorrect 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 [snip] [snip] argumentation or discourse. mike Alan Mike Corbeil wrote: Alan Shoemaker wrote: Bobyou 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
WAS RE: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1 NOW: BICKERING!
Jesus can you people can it!? This is getting old take your bickering off the list. I don't think myself or anyone else would care to hear your personal attacks and jibes at each other. I'm hear to learn, not to watch a verbal boxing match. Nick Horton -Original Message- From: Mike Corbeil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 3:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1 Pittman, Merle wrote: 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. Having advanced degrees does not necessarily make you a sharper human being, except that you know more about the technical business you studied in. Humans are not reduceable to merely technological terms. There's a hell of a lot more to being a totally balanced human being than an ego trip over advanced degrees in technology. Don't know if you're noticed or not, but technology has also been much the cause for the serious degradation of the natural environment on this planet; therefore, before waving your pieces of paper, think first, because these aren't impressive, no where as much as the continuous destruction of the natural environment of this planet is. If only people with might high pieces of paper in technical studies could only figure out that simple reality. My arrogance is only your interpretation. I wonder if someone who waves highly advanced pieces of paper can figure out the simple meaning of this; however, to give you a little assistance, what it means is that I'm not at all arrogant and it's merely in your eyes that I am. What I am, though, is FRANK and a no-bs type. If you prefer bs, pc crap, then by all means, continue to live that way, if that's how you like to perceive the world; however, don't ever pretend your two pieces of paper to be of any true significance to me, for reasons as stated above. That's what I have to think about many so-called highly educated types. I don't reduce humanity to mathematics or science, but instead take the opposite pov, which is to put these sciences to the service of HUMANITY. Hence I BELIEVE in PEOPLE, far more than I believe in the sciences we discover and develop, but use so atrociously. If you don't grasp this truth, then believe me when I tell you, you'll never be convincing, not to me. If you knew how to read, then you'ld have realized very clearly that I wasn't bragging, but only describing my pov and reasoning to illustrate. T'was not at all for bragging, because, as per above. mike -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: Mikecorrect 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
Re: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1
Mikethe subject that I consider closed is the conversation I was attempting to have with you. We very obviously disagree as to what this forum is for and I wish to discontinue messaging with you about it as I consider stretching this out any further to be inappropriate for this venue. Please don't answer this. Let it end. I will not participate further. Good bye, Alan Mike Corbeil wrote: Alan Shoemaker wrote: Mikenever mind, you just don't seem to get it. I consider this subject closed. Maybe for you, but if others wish to provide more educational information, then believe me when I tell you, I'll be glad to read it. You can just skip the thread. [snip] [snip] mike Alan Mike Corbeil wrote: Alan Shoemaker wrote: Mikecorrect 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 [snip] [snip] argumentation or discourse. mike Alan Mike Corbeil wrote: Alan Shoemaker wrote: Bobyou 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
Re: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1
Petty issues like this should be taken to private email, kids -Necro On Wed, 19 Apr 2000, Joe Perry wrote: 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. The umask parameter in /etc/fstab is the inverse of the chmod permission mask for all files in this directory. By default the files are readable and writeable by the user mounting the partition(if root mounts the partition, either on boot or later, then root is the ONLY user that can read and write to this directory). Your non-root user does not have access, this is irrespective to the permissions before mounting. umask = 0 : this directory is writable by everybody( permissions 777) umask = 7 : this directory is writable by the owner and his group ONLY; umask = 77 : this directory is writable by the owner ONLY; I would choose one of these based on who and when the partition is mounted and who you wish access to. I would not recommend the first one on a networked computer. You can override the owner and group of the mounted partition using the uid and gid parameters. Joseph H. Perry Oracle DBA Columbus State University 4225 University Ave Columbus, GA 31907-5645 (706) 568-2063 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: WAS RE: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1 NOW: BICKERING!
Finally, a voice of reason ! I second the motion - this is all getting tiresome - Original Message - From: "Nicholas Horton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 6:26 PM Subject: WAS RE: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1 NOW: BICKERING! Jesus can you people can it!? This is getting old take your bickering off the list. I don't think myself or anyone else would care to hear your personal attacks and jibes at each other. I'm hear to learn, not to watch a verbal boxing match. Nick Horton -Original Message- From: Mike Corbeil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 3:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1 Pittman, Merle wrote: 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. Having advanced degrees does not necessarily make you a sharper human being, except that you know more about the technical business you studied in. Humans are not reduceable to merely technological terms. There's a hell of a lot more to being a totally balanced human being than an ego trip over advanced degrees in technology. Don't know if you're noticed or not, but technology has also been much the cause for the serious degradation of the natural environment on this planet; therefore, before waving your pieces of paper, think first, because these aren't impressive, no where as much as the continuous destruction of the natural environment of this planet is. If only people with might high pieces of paper in technical studies could only figure out that simple reality. My arrogance is only your interpretation. I wonder if someone who waves highly advanced pieces of paper can figure out the simple meaning of this; however, to give you a little assistance, what it means is that I'm not at all arrogant and it's merely in your eyes that I am. What I am, though, is FRANK and a no-bs type. If you prefer bs, pc crap, then by all means, continue to live that way, if that's how you like to perceive the world; however, don't ever pretend your two pieces of paper to be of any true significance to me, for reasons as stated above. That's what I have to think about many so-called highly educated types. I don't reduce humanity to mathematics or science, but instead take the opposite pov, which is to put these sciences to the service of HUMANITY. Hence I BELIEVE in PEOPLE, far more than I believe in the sciences we discover and develop, but use so atrociously. If you don't grasp this truth, then believe me when I tell you, you'll never be convincing, not to me. If you knew how to read, then you'ld have realized very clearly that I wasn't bragging, but only describing my pov and reasoning to illustrate. T'was not at all for bragging, because, as per above. mike -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: Mikecorrect 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.
Re: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1
Mike Corbeil wrote: Alan Shoemaker wrote: Mikecorrect 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 Mike, I've been watching your posts for the last couple of days. You know, sometimes it's just good to add a couple of lines to a post if you think you can help, you don't have to write a novel every time someone says 'help'. That's about as helpful as reading a howto. I have to agree with Alan here, you're not only rambling, you somehow seem to think that you're the only one with anything valid to say. You've
Re: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1
Michael Holt wrote: Mike Corbeil wrote: Alan Shoemaker wrote: Mikecorrect 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 Mike, I've been watching your posts for the last couple of days. You know, sometimes it's just good to add a couple of lines to a post if you think you can help, you don't have to write a novel every time someone says 'help'. That's about as helpful as reading a howto. I have to agree with Alan here,
Re: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1
Excuse me, I'm not quite sure what planet you come from, but I for one am about sick of your mouth! If there's anything more you care to add, I'm sure that you can find my personal address on this message somewhere; I'm absolutely POSITIVE that this is not the place to continue this. Mike Mike Corbeil wrote: Now, that's a prime example of an ignorant ass who hasn't a clue about true reality. Thanks for the illustration, because I prefer to provide analogies based on real examples. Your pompous interpretations and renditions are worthy of only yourself, and you're a fucking hypocrite, because if you had something truly worthy of saying, then it wouldn't be based on pompeity. You've jumped on other people's answers to questions - patronizing the answers that are given. How did I patronize? That's only your assinine pompous interpretation, but it's refreshing to see how assinine people do continue to exist. Be pompous. Believe your interpretations are correct with giving a second thought wrt objectivity. You'll prove the theory accurate every time. You seem to be a pretty knowledgeable guy, and I think you do come up with some pretty good answers - maybe you could just calm down a bit? Not everything has to be confrontational. Who's confrontational, pompous idiots who believe they have the entire definition of people they don't even know, or those who merely propose more information, or information along a different tangent? Stick with your [stupid] nonsensical ideas of what you believe to be reality, and if you truly want to see the results of objective analysis, then I'm prepared to stand in front of the most objective and sound thinkers on this planet, to confront the likes of a pompous idiot like yourself. I haven't a problem with that. Although, they might find me a little offensive or too frank, they'ld quickly realize that "ah, reality is not a narrowly defined picture", as you obviously like to define it. Get this dude, your narrow minded definitions of what makes up reality and what doesn't, hasn't a single ounce of influence, because you're pompous, and a damned idiot. Just call me FRANK. I CHERISH being FRANK; therefore, shove it where it belongs, that is, your stupid assinine opinion. If you wish more such replies, then by all means, I have no contentions with respect to telling you REALITY. Grow the f.ck up. truly, mike another Mike -- The Penguins are coming!!! Michael Holt [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- The Penguins are coming!!! Michael Holt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1
"Pittman, Merle" wrote: 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. Oh MAN! Is this going to turn into a battle of egos now? For someone with... oh, never mind. -Stephen-
Re: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1
Hello, if you want to make a partition in dos I recommend you use the FDISK included in windows98 or 95 even 2000 boot disk. Start FDISK and make the proper partition.
Re: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1
Bobyou also need to include umask=0 on that line in /etc/fstab. 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
Re: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1
Bobyou also need to include umask=0 on that line in /etc/fstab. 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
Re: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1
Bobyou also need to include umask=0 on that line in /etc/fstab. 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
Re: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1
Bobyou also need to include umask=0 on that line in /etc/fstab. 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
Re: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1
Bobyou also need to include umask=0 on that line in /etc/fstab. 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
Re: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1
Alan Shoemaker wrote: Bobyou 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
[newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1
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
Re: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1
In /etc/fstab, add "umask=0" w/o quotes as one of the options at the end of hte partition you want to be writable. Should be right after the other options. Here's mine for instance: /dev/hdb5 /windows vfat user,exec,nodev,nosuid,rw,conv=auto,umask=0 0 0 And this is another thing Mandrake should do automatically. They mount it automatically for you right now, so it probally wouldn't be that hard for them to make it writable to everyone. Or maybe there's a good reason to leave it defaulted as read only. 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 -- Anthony Huereca http://m3000.1wh.com Computers are not intelligent. They only think they are.
RE: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1
Did you set your 'mount' dir to the right permisions ? Eric -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Cox Family Sent: Monday, April 17, 2000 3:24 PM To: Linux Mandrake, Newbie list Subject: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1 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
Re: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1
Anthony Huereca wrote: In /etc/fstab, add "umask=0" w/o quotes as one of the options at the end of hte partition you want to be writable. Should be right after the other options. Here's mine for instance: /dev/hdb5 /windows vfat user,exec,nodev,nosuid,rw,conv=auto,umask=0 0 0 And this is another thing Mandrake should do automatically. They mount it automatically for you right now, so it probally wouldn't be that hard for them to make it writable to everyone. Or maybe there's a good reason to leave it defaulted as read only. There's generally, as far as I'm aware, no reason to mount dos drives automatically. This should be a /mnt mount point and /mnt mount points aren't intended to be automatically mounted. On the other hand, I'm refering to automatically mounting during the boot process, instead of when the mount point is accessed later on. rw should make it writable. I'm not sure why umask=0 is needed, unless this is just because it's not ext2. rw, alone, makes ext2 filesystems writable. Filesystems which don't directly pertain to the actual Linux configuration you boot into should not be mounted during boot, unless you're dealing with networking (in which case I don't have enough knowledge to say one way or the other, except that in many a Unix environment, these are automounted only when a user tries to access them, instead of during the boot process). What I've read and helps to keep everything clearer is that what you create in / are symbolic links to the mount points in /mnt. E,g., /c: = /mnt/c: By using ls -l or ls -F against /c: or even just /, the user sees /c: is a symbolic link to a /mnt mount point and can therefore immediately realize or assume that this is not mounted during the boot process. mount /mnt/c:- will "automatically" mount /mnt/c: according to the definition in the fstab file, if there's a definition for it there. If that's not done, a user does ls /mnt/c: and /mnt/c: is automatically mounted, then this is automounting as is often known in Unix. Then, /c: is accessible, in all of these cases. I'm not sure what form of automatic mounting people are referring to, here, because automatic applies in all three cases, in different ways. In Solaris, automounting "foreign" filesystems refers to the latter meaning, as far as I'm aware, but because this is a newbie list, people could mean something different. Even in the expert mailing list, people could mean any of these three possibilities. "Automatic" is a fairly general concept and context usually helps to clarify the meaning. Explicit explanation always clarifies the meaning. So, which are you people usually referring to? The general recommendation of placing any filesystems which aren't mounted during the boot process in /mnt is a good idea, because it keeps a system configuration more immediately understandable. Mount points can be placed almost anywhere, even buried n directories deep; however, to become accustomed to creating configurations according to more general or "standard" guidelines, it's good to follow these. Create mount points in /mnt and symbolic links to these in /, or your home directory (/ is better, because in / these are accessible by everyone who has the privileges to use these). It's a little extra overhead in setting up, but when doing ls -F on /, for example, it's immediately evident that /cdrom, /a:, /floppy, /c:, /d:, etcetera, are symlinks to /mnt mount points. Mounting can't be done using these, because they're symlinks, but mounting is done relatively infrequently, while access is done much more often; therefore, the extra typing of /mnt for mounting and umounting is insignificant. Mandrake may have made / the location of these mount points, but this renders the system a little less immediately understandable, because any actual directory hard links in /, should be part of the main configuration. cdrom, dos partitions, and floppies aren't always in use and don't really make up part of the principal Linux configuration. These are "add-ons", whereas /boot, /var, /home, /usr, /tmp are not conceivable as "add-ons". That's the "religious" point of view, but most systems probably do it this way, for this kind of reasoning. You'll find the same kind of explanation in LDP and other documentation, as well as books. On many Unix systems, you'll find such mount points in other locations, such as under some /usr directory. Sometimes vendors may choose to change the more standard ways, but this can potentially cause problems over the long term, as you switch from one environment to another. By adhering to "convention", this kind of problem is avoided. Also, not all programs accept symbolic links, as far as I'm aware (ran into one or two about a week ago). /mnt should not contain symbolic links, at least none used by programs, but / will on "conventional" Linux systems, where as not on others; therefore, some programs may need additional coding
Re: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1
Stephen F. Bosch wrote: 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 With FAT partitions, you have to specify the default umask value in order to alter the permissions and make folders writeable. There's a blurb on this in the FAT portion of the mount man page. This should be taken care of by simply using one of the gui fs config tools, such as fsconf or linuxconf, or the drak one. If there isn't a bug in these, then use one of these tools and then verify the /etc/fstab file to make sure the settings are correct for the dos drives. You'll only know if there's a "bug" in these tools after verifying the fstab file. Try these tools until you find one which is reliable for this task, and if none are, then edit the fstab file directly. mike -Stephen-
Re: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1
I *think* I understood what you wrote, but I'm a bit confused. All the symlinking and stuff. Anyway, the way Mandrake "auto-mounts" it's HD's (at least in 6.1, although I'm sure it's similar in 7.0) is it created several mount directories (ie /mnt/DOS_sda5/) during installation and then at boot-up it'll mount /dev/sda5 on /mnt/DOS_sda5. That way the newbie user doesn't have to deal with mounting his harddrives, Mandrake does it for them. I think maybe you got confused because my mount point for /dev/hdb5 is /windows. I just created it there myself because of some small convinces, mounting it in /mnt/hdb5 would mean an extra mouse click when looking for mp3's with XMMS. And it's slightly less typing when I work at the console. But don't worry, I know that most of the time mount points will be in /mnt and that's the way a standard Mandrake install does it. Anthony Huereca wrote: In /etc/fstab, add "umask=0" w/o quotes as one of the options at the end of hte partition you want to be writable. Should be right after the other options. Here's mine for instance: /dev/hdb5 /windows vfat user,exec,nodev,nosuid,rw,conv=auto,umask=0 0 0 And this is another thing Mandrake should do automatically. They mount it automatically for you right now, so it probally wouldn't be that hard for them to make it writable to everyone. Or maybe there's a good reason to leave it defaulted as read only. There's generally, as far as I'm aware, no reason to mount dos drives automatically. This should be a /mnt mount point and /mnt mount points aren't intended to be automatically mounted. On the other hand, I'm refering to automatically mounting during the boot process, instead of when the mount point is accessed later on. rw should make it writable. I'm not sure why umask=0 is needed, unless this is just because it's not ext2. rw, alone, makes ext2 filesystems writable. Filesystems which don't directly pertain to the actual Linux configuration you boot into should not be mounted during boot, unless you're dealing with networking (in which case I don't have enough knowledge to say one way or the other, except that in many a Unix environment, these are automounted only when a user tries to access them, instead of during the boot process). What I've read and helps to keep everything clearer is that what you create in / are symbolic links to the mount points in /mnt. E,g., /c: = /mnt/c: By using ls -l or ls -F against /c: or even just /, the user sees /c: is a symbolic link to a /mnt mount point and can therefore immediately realize or assume that this is not mounted during the boot process. mount /mnt/c:- will "automatically" mount /mnt/c: according to the definition in the fstab file, if there's a definition for it there. If that's not done, a user does ls /mnt/c: and /mnt/c: is automatically mounted, then this is automounting as is often known in Unix. Then, /c: is accessible, in all of these cases. I'm not sure what form of automatic mounting people are referring to, here, because automatic applies in all three cases, in different ways. In Solaris, automounting "foreign" filesystems refers to the latter meaning, as far as I'm aware, but because this is a newbie list, people could mean something different. Even in the expert mailing list, people could mean any of these three possibilities. "Automatic" is a fairly general concept and context usually helps to clarify the meaning. Explicit explanation always clarifies the meaning. So, which are you people usually referring to? The general recommendation of placing any filesystems which aren't mounted during the boot process in /mnt is a good idea, because it keeps a system configuration more immediately understandable. Mount points can be placed almost anywhere, even buried n directories deep; however, to become accustomed to creating configurations according to more general or "standard" guidelines, it's good to follow these. Create mount points in /mnt and symbolic links to these in /, or your home directory (/ is better, because in / these are accessible by everyone who has the privileges to use these). It's a little extra overhead in setting up, but when doing ls -F on /, for example, it's immediately evident that /cdrom, /a:, /floppy, /c:, /d:, etcetera, are symlinks to /mnt mount points. Mounting can't be done using these, because they're symlinks, but mounting is done relatively infrequently, while access is done much more often; therefore, the extra typing of /mnt for mounting and umounting is insignificant. Mandrake may have made / the location of these mount points, but this renders the system a little less immediately understandable, because any actual directory hard links in /, should be part of the main configuration. cdrom, dos partitions, and floppies aren't always in use and don't really make up part of the principal
