Hello Bob.

27 Jun 04 16:56, you wrote to me:


 BL>  Yes! They are not necessarily the same thing. In fact, I could not
 BL> find a way to change the permissions of the dos files, so I changed
 BL> the owner to bob rather than root. I think it's because DOS only has
 BL> archive, read-only, and system as the operating archive bits. I
 BL> suspect that Linux allocates the read-only bit to "owner"
and leaves
 BL> "group" out altogether, making group *always* read-only. Executable
 BL> becomes the DOS "system" bit.

the umask effects what permissions owner, group, and everyone else gets.

in each digit the 1 bit is for execute, the 2 bit foe write and the 4 bit
for read permission.

eg: 777 give all permission to everone, 644 lets only the owner write and
everyone may read.

I don't think execute permission effects wethere a windows user of a samba
mount may run the file.

(there are other bits but I forget which does what, and i don';t think they
are relevant to mounting dos filesystems)

Jasen

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.4.7