Bob wrote:
Why do I think that the message below has anything to do with me, and how
many others have wondered the same thing. It would be appreciated if people
could consider if what they are replying to has meaning to everyone on the
list. Thank you.
Bob Root
On Mon, 05 Jun 2000,
CTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 7:39 AM
Subject: Re: [newbie] Administration Question
because it was a reply to an answer by said flupke to a post by me
composed by reading his/her answer and choosing reply to sender from the
appropriate menu,
it should have appeared appropriately in the thread
Yes, It's hardly understandable. And from the little I can understand, I
think it better stays in its rude, uncivlised darkness.
--
Piero.
Tue, 06 Jun 2000, Stephen Weltman wrote:
I don't mean to be rude, but that is the worst run-on sentence I have ever
encountered! I don't think that your
My point exactly, that is having no knowledge of what your message might
have contained, but having a subject of "Administration Question" we opened
the thing and viewed a very nice "Thank You". I would suggest that
between just two lists, newbies and blt, upwards of 200 hundred
messages are
Amen to that.
Dacia
--- "Oliver L. Plaine Jr."
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't mean to be rude, but that is the worst
run-on sentence I have ever
encountered! I don't think that your intended
receiver got what you meant
clearly.
=
Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:19:30
No
thanks flupke
bascule
Why do I think that the message below has anything to do with me, and how
many others have wondered the same thing. It would be appreciated if people
could consider if what they are replying to has meaning to everyone on the
list. Thank you.
Bob Root
On Mon, 05 Jun 2000, you wrote:
thanks
because it was a reply to an answer by said flupke to a post by me
composed by reading his/her answer and choosing reply to sender from the
appropriate menu,
it should have appeared appropriately in the thread unless you had
deleted all previous thread posts, since i was 'merely' being courteous
On Wed, 31 May 2000, John Rye wrote:
Hi,
it would be indeed the proper way to do as you already wrote.
Create a new directory, chown that to
anyone.group_where_fred_and_tom_will_be_in and then add tom and fred to
that group.
Paul
I have two users call them 'fred' and 'tom'
I need for these
On Thu, 01 Jun 2000, you wrote:
Two options.
Very Large Snip
Thank You,
Problem solved
Cheers
hi flupke,
your answer to john's post is interesting because it says that a group
can own files, i always assumed that an 'owner' had to be a user (though
i never saw that written anywhere), can a group also be a member of
another group like a user can?
bascule
flupke wrote:
I think the best
Hi Bascule,
I didn't really meant that a group can own a file (even if the man chgrp
says : chgrp - change group ownership). Sorry if I didn't express
myself correctly. I just meant that there are permissions to a file that
are specific to a particular group.
I might be wrong, but I don't
I think the best way to make what you want would be to create a new
group dedicated to the files shared by fred and tom. Lets call it
fredandtom (groupadd fredandtom).
Make Both fred and tom member of this new group (by adding "fred,tom" to
the entry fredandtom in the /etc/group file).
Then make
I have two users call them 'fred' and 'tom'
I need for these two users to be able to share files (usually text).
Both users are members of their own groups named for their usernames.
How should I go about this?
'fred' may NOT have access to 'tom's files and 'tom' may NOT have
access
14 matches
Mail list logo
