[ILUG] repair permissions
blf at blf.utvinternet.co.uk
Wed Mar 16 20:43:36 GMT 2005
| Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:02:55 +0000
| From: Niall Walsh <linux at esatclear.ie>
|[ ... ]
| Makes me wonder why --no-preserve-root is the default for chmod
| rather then --preserve-root, or why it isn't aliased for root on
| (all/more/some) distros.
I've never understood why BSD added `-R' to chown(1),
chmod(1), and chgrp(1) in the first place. that option,
which I have never liked for several reasons (including
one which should now be obvious!), did not exist in
7th Edition Unix. since find(1) did, the functionality
was present, but in a form that is less dangerous.
rm(1) in Unix of that vintage did have `-r', and _I_
once did the equivalent of `cd /; rm -rf *' (followed by
a quick ^C !) --- massively fortunately, late at night
(which is probably the reason: sleepiness!) c.30mins
after a full level-0 backup had completed, so all that
was lost was a few e-mails. but a long night turned
into a very very loonnnggggg night.... ;-\
the `--(no-)preserve-root' is (very probably) a GNU
invention. the historical, Unix, and maybe POSIX.2
behaviour is GNUs `--no-preserve-root'. but no matter
which way it is, you would still have all the other
problems with the absurd `-R' option, including the
sort of thing I did: `cd /; chmod -R 777 *'
Experienced (20+ yrs) kernel/software Eng: | Brian Foster Montpellier,
• Unix, embedded, &tc; • Linux; • doc; | blf at utvinternet.ie FRANCE
• IDL, automated testing, process, &tc. | Stop E$$o (ExxonMobile)!
Résumé (CV) http://www.blf.utvinternet.ie | http://www.stopesso.com
More information about the ILUG