Re: chmod: Why must "g+s" be specified symbolically (at least in

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004, Kenny McCormack wrote:

> Questions
> 	1) Why is this?

IIRC, it was done to help prevent finger trouble.  I.e., you have
to go that extra step if you want to change permission AND set
the SGID bit.

--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, author of "Solaris Systems Programming"

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich

In article <Pine.SOL.4.58.0410221403000.17681@zaphod.rite-group.com>,
Rich Teer  <rich.teer@rite-group.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Oct 2004, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> 
>
>IIRC, it was done to help prevent finger trouble.  I.e., you have
>to go that extra step if you want to change permission AND set
>the SGID bit.

It's a trigger guard that has _long_ outlived its usefulness.

Chris Thompson
Email: cet1 [at] cam.ac.uk

Rich Teer wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2004, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>
> 
>
>
> IIRC, it was done to help prevent finger trouble.  I.e., you have
> to go that extra step if you want to change permission AND set
> the SGID bit.
>

I don't agree to that. You can either use the command

% chmod 2644 file

or

% chmod u+rw,g+s

The result is the same.

\Steve

Beardy wrote:
> Rich Teer wrote:
> 
>
> Yup - you have to be pretty determined/certain to hold the shit key down
> long enough to generate "+". That shows commitment enough to change the
> SGID bit and/or perms ;-)
>

shi*f*t key, mummy ;-)