From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Sep 22 16:52:44 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA02312 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 16:52:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from pau-amma.whistle.com (s205m64.whistle.com [207.76.205.64]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA02298 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 16:52:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dhw@whistle.com) Received: (from dhw@localhost) by pau-amma.whistle.com (8.8.8/8.8.7) id QAA01557; Tue, 22 Sep 1998 16:51:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dhw) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 16:51:44 -0700 (PDT) From: David Wolfskill Message-Id: <199809222351.QAA01557@pau-amma.whistle.com> To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, ziggy@wopr.inetu.net Subject: Re: ufs_access behavior In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 19:22:19 -0400 (EDT) >From: Ryan Ziegler >Is there a reason for a user to not always have read/write access to his >files (perm 000), as root does (for any file)? Yes. For example, I use RCS for lots of things, such as Web pages. When the page is checked in, it has perms 0444... and the not-so-subtle reminder that the file is read-only is sometimes a useful clue that I was supposed to have followed my own rules & checked the file out before messing with it. david -- David Wolfskill UNIX System Administrator dhw@whistle.com voice: (650) 577-7158 pager: (650) 371-4621 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message