Samba server problem
p.echols at comcast.net
Tue Nov 17 08:08:49 UTC 2009
On 11/16/2009 10:13 PM, Christopher Chan wrote:
>> Uhhh, ok I just learned something. I had thought that you were
>> *supposed* to set permissions on "data" that are not intended to be
>> executable to "rw" and not "x". Though now that I look for it, I can't
>> find a reference for why I "Knew" that. But setting permissions fixed
>> it. A couple of questions if you don't mind.
>> Would it be better practice to have the directory "owned" by the group
>> "users" (if you can even to that) and set the permissions to 700, or to
>> do as it is now, files are "owned" by me, but permissions are 770?
>> So following chmod -R 770 /raid/Windata everything is set to:
>> drwxrw-r-- 9 patton users 4096 2009-09-19 22:11 Windata
>> More generically, why all the permission levels if you can't touch the
>> files w/o the correct "rwx" permissions? or am I missing something
>> critical? I suppose this question really should be added to my reading
>> list for future reference.
> It is already 'owned' by users. The first set of permissions related to
> the user owner, the second set to the group owner and the last set to
> everybody else.
> For directories, the 'x' bit represents the permission to search (go
> into - not list contents of) the directory while it represents the
> permission to execute for files.
Ok, thanks. Not quite sure I get it, but as I said, permissions is on
my reading list. At least my server is working properly . . . until I
implement the next thing!
Thanks to everyone else who chimed in, I appreciate it.
More information about the ubuntu-users