the part of the documentation that says ACCESS HANDLING AND SECURITY
/Be default, files and directories are owned by ... and everybody has full
read,
write, execution and directory browsing permissions. is at best deceptive,
at worst completely untrue.
What do you feel deceptive or untrue
The whole sentence is deceptive.
My issue arose because I applied no_def_opts.
The documentation says that no_def_opts cancels options silent,
allow_other, and nonempty.
The documentation does not say that no_def_opts overrides the default
behavior described in the Access Handling paragraph,
Repeating my tests, I agree with Jean-Pierre: the system response is Operation
not supported not Operation not permitted. I wrote my report of 16 October
from handwritten notes--I conclude that I transcribed the system response
incorrectly.
Thanks you Mr. Andre for your suggestions regarding
Trying to replay your example, I got Operation not supported, not
Operation not permitted.
The no_def_opts means not setting the silent option (and other
ones), and there is some lack of documentation information on silent :
beside ignoring errors on chmod(1) and chown(1), this also ignores
After further tests, I have isolated the problem to the no_def_opts
option of ntfs-3g. For these tests, the NTFS partition is not mentioned
in /etc/fstab. The mount point for the NFTS partition is an empty
directory /net/win owned by root with permissions rwxrwxrwx With this
setup, if I log in
