This question is ruined. I should publish a totally different question [on hold]

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
-5
down vote

favorite












This question is ruined. I should publish a totally different question.






bash umask terminology







share|improve this question















put on hold as unclear what you're asking by JdeBP, Jeff Schaller, thrig, mosvy, JigglyNaga 18 mins ago


Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.














  • Why do you think that it does?
    – JdeBP
    22 hours ago










  • I thinked it might be due to different names and also because I once read about it and didn't find a clear example of a difference (due to lack of background knowledge at the time)... I don't think it's worth discussing...
    – JohnDoea
    5 hours ago










  • You've asked twice, now, how a file creation mask is not a mask. Both times, people have asked in several ways why you think that to even be the case. You did not explain in the deleted question, and you aren't really explaining here. Do not be surprised that the repeated question gains no traction.
    – JdeBP
    4 hours ago










  • I think I explained it above and the explanation doesn't satisfy you; go on, downvote more and more of my questions. Very helpful and communal.
    – JohnDoea
    1 hour ago











  • I wouldn't call a bit mask a 'stream' (though if you're into streams, you can treat everything as a stream). There's no difference between a bitmask and the umask; the latter is just a bitmask describing what permission to turn off when creating a file. You're like what difference is between a spade and and spade used to dig a grave.
    – mosvy
    37 mins ago














up vote
-5
down vote

favorite












This question is ruined. I should publish a totally different question.






bash umask terminology







share|improve this question















put on hold as unclear what you're asking by JdeBP, Jeff Schaller, thrig, mosvy, JigglyNaga 18 mins ago


Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.














  • Why do you think that it does?
    – JdeBP
    22 hours ago










  • I thinked it might be due to different names and also because I once read about it and didn't find a clear example of a difference (due to lack of background knowledge at the time)... I don't think it's worth discussing...
    – JohnDoea
    5 hours ago










  • You've asked twice, now, how a file creation mask is not a mask. Both times, people have asked in several ways why you think that to even be the case. You did not explain in the deleted question, and you aren't really explaining here. Do not be surprised that the repeated question gains no traction.
    – JdeBP
    4 hours ago










  • I think I explained it above and the explanation doesn't satisfy you; go on, downvote more and more of my questions. Very helpful and communal.
    – JohnDoea
    1 hour ago











  • I wouldn't call a bit mask a 'stream' (though if you're into streams, you can treat everything as a stream). There's no difference between a bitmask and the umask; the latter is just a bitmask describing what permission to turn off when creating a file. You're like what difference is between a spade and and spade used to dig a grave.
    – mosvy
    37 mins ago












up vote
-5
down vote

favorite









up vote
-5
down vote

favorite











This question is ruined. I should publish a totally different question.






bash umask terminology







share|improve this question















This question is ruined. I should publish a totally different question.






bash umask terminology




bash umask terminology






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 13 mins ago

























asked 23 hours ago









JohnDoea

107730




107730




put on hold as unclear what you're asking by JdeBP, Jeff Schaller, thrig, mosvy, JigglyNaga 18 mins ago


Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.






put on hold as unclear what you're asking by JdeBP, Jeff Schaller, thrig, mosvy, JigglyNaga 18 mins ago


Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.













  • Why do you think that it does?
    – JdeBP
    22 hours ago










  • I thinked it might be due to different names and also because I once read about it and didn't find a clear example of a difference (due to lack of background knowledge at the time)... I don't think it's worth discussing...
    – JohnDoea
    5 hours ago










  • You've asked twice, now, how a file creation mask is not a mask. Both times, people have asked in several ways why you think that to even be the case. You did not explain in the deleted question, and you aren't really explaining here. Do not be surprised that the repeated question gains no traction.
    – JdeBP
    4 hours ago










  • I think I explained it above and the explanation doesn't satisfy you; go on, downvote more and more of my questions. Very helpful and communal.
    – JohnDoea
    1 hour ago











  • I wouldn't call a bit mask a 'stream' (though if you're into streams, you can treat everything as a stream). There's no difference between a bitmask and the umask; the latter is just a bitmask describing what permission to turn off when creating a file. You're like what difference is between a spade and and spade used to dig a grave.
    – mosvy
    37 mins ago
















  • Why do you think that it does?
    – JdeBP
    22 hours ago










  • I thinked it might be due to different names and also because I once read about it and didn't find a clear example of a difference (due to lack of background knowledge at the time)... I don't think it's worth discussing...
    – JohnDoea
    5 hours ago










  • You've asked twice, now, how a file creation mask is not a mask. Both times, people have asked in several ways why you think that to even be the case. You did not explain in the deleted question, and you aren't really explaining here. Do not be surprised that the repeated question gains no traction.
    – JdeBP
    4 hours ago










  • I think I explained it above and the explanation doesn't satisfy you; go on, downvote more and more of my questions. Very helpful and communal.
    – JohnDoea
    1 hour ago











  • I wouldn't call a bit mask a 'stream' (though if you're into streams, you can treat everything as a stream). There's no difference between a bitmask and the umask; the latter is just a bitmask describing what permission to turn off when creating a file. You're like what difference is between a spade and and spade used to dig a grave.
    – mosvy
    37 mins ago















Why do you think that it does?
– JdeBP
22 hours ago




Why do you think that it does?
– JdeBP
22 hours ago












I thinked it might be due to different names and also because I once read about it and didn't find a clear example of a difference (due to lack of background knowledge at the time)... I don't think it's worth discussing...
– JohnDoea
5 hours ago




I thinked it might be due to different names and also because I once read about it and didn't find a clear example of a difference (due to lack of background knowledge at the time)... I don't think it's worth discussing...
– JohnDoea
5 hours ago












You've asked twice, now, how a file creation mask is not a mask. Both times, people have asked in several ways why you think that to even be the case. You did not explain in the deleted question, and you aren't really explaining here. Do not be surprised that the repeated question gains no traction.
– JdeBP
4 hours ago




You've asked twice, now, how a file creation mask is not a mask. Both times, people have asked in several ways why you think that to even be the case. You did not explain in the deleted question, and you aren't really explaining here. Do not be surprised that the repeated question gains no traction.
– JdeBP
4 hours ago












I think I explained it above and the explanation doesn't satisfy you; go on, downvote more and more of my questions. Very helpful and communal.
– JohnDoea
1 hour ago





I think I explained it above and the explanation doesn't satisfy you; go on, downvote more and more of my questions. Very helpful and communal.
– JohnDoea
1 hour ago













I wouldn't call a bit mask a 'stream' (though if you're into streams, you can treat everything as a stream). There's no difference between a bitmask and the umask; the latter is just a bitmask describing what permission to turn off when creating a file. You're like what difference is between a spade and and spade used to dig a grave.
– mosvy
37 mins ago




I wouldn't call a bit mask a 'stream' (though if you're into streams, you can treat everything as a stream). There's no difference between a bitmask and the umask; the latter is just a bitmask describing what permission to turn off when creating a file. You're like what difference is between a spade and and spade used to dig a grave.
– mosvy
37 mins ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
0
down vote













umask is used to set the mask.






share|improve this answer




















  • Did you mean to say it is a utility ?
    – JohnDoea
    5 hours ago










  • What i meant to say is you use umask command to set mask permissions.
    – AsenM
    5 hours ago

















up vote
0
down vote













In Linux the default file permission is 0644, default directory permission is 0755 and default umask is 0022.



Now, as the full permission of a file is 0666, the default permission came from (0666 - 0022 = 0644) and for directory it is (0777 - 0022 = 0755).



You can set the mask using #umask 0000, and it will create files and directories with full 666/777 permission (which is very insecure though).






share|improve this answer






















  • Hello Al Mamum. I think this question should be deleted. You might want to copy the answer and save it in an ODT on your computer, or you'd like to post a question+answer with this answer.
    – JohnDoea
    1 hour ago

















2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
0
down vote













umask is used to set the mask.






share|improve this answer




















  • Did you mean to say it is a utility ?
    – JohnDoea
    5 hours ago










  • What i meant to say is you use umask command to set mask permissions.
    – AsenM
    5 hours ago














up vote
0
down vote













umask is used to set the mask.






share|improve this answer




















  • Did you mean to say it is a utility ?
    – JohnDoea
    5 hours ago










  • What i meant to say is you use umask command to set mask permissions.
    – AsenM
    5 hours ago












up vote
0
down vote










up vote
0
down vote









umask is used to set the mask.






share|improve this answer












umask is used to set the mask.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 22 hours ago









AsenM

3837




3837











  • Did you mean to say it is a utility ?
    – JohnDoea
    5 hours ago










  • What i meant to say is you use umask command to set mask permissions.
    – AsenM
    5 hours ago
















  • Did you mean to say it is a utility ?
    – JohnDoea
    5 hours ago










  • What i meant to say is you use umask command to set mask permissions.
    – AsenM
    5 hours ago















Did you mean to say it is a utility ?
– JohnDoea
5 hours ago




Did you mean to say it is a utility ?
– JohnDoea
5 hours ago












What i meant to say is you use umask command to set mask permissions.
– AsenM
5 hours ago




What i meant to say is you use umask command to set mask permissions.
– AsenM
5 hours ago












up vote
0
down vote













In Linux the default file permission is 0644, default directory permission is 0755 and default umask is 0022.



Now, as the full permission of a file is 0666, the default permission came from (0666 - 0022 = 0644) and for directory it is (0777 - 0022 = 0755).



You can set the mask using #umask 0000, and it will create files and directories with full 666/777 permission (which is very insecure though).






share|improve this answer






















  • Hello Al Mamum. I think this question should be deleted. You might want to copy the answer and save it in an ODT on your computer, or you'd like to post a question+answer with this answer.
    – JohnDoea
    1 hour ago














up vote
0
down vote













In Linux the default file permission is 0644, default directory permission is 0755 and default umask is 0022.



Now, as the full permission of a file is 0666, the default permission came from (0666 - 0022 = 0644) and for directory it is (0777 - 0022 = 0755).



You can set the mask using #umask 0000, and it will create files and directories with full 666/777 permission (which is very insecure though).






share|improve this answer






















  • Hello Al Mamum. I think this question should be deleted. You might want to copy the answer and save it in an ODT on your computer, or you'd like to post a question+answer with this answer.
    – JohnDoea
    1 hour ago












up vote
0
down vote










up vote
0
down vote









In Linux the default file permission is 0644, default directory permission is 0755 and default umask is 0022.



Now, as the full permission of a file is 0666, the default permission came from (0666 - 0022 = 0644) and for directory it is (0777 - 0022 = 0755).



You can set the mask using #umask 0000, and it will create files and directories with full 666/777 permission (which is very insecure though).






share|improve this answer














In Linux the default file permission is 0644, default directory permission is 0755 and default umask is 0022.



Now, as the full permission of a file is 0666, the default permission came from (0666 - 0022 = 0644) and for directory it is (0777 - 0022 = 0755).



You can set the mask using #umask 0000, and it will create files and directories with full 666/777 permission (which is very insecure though).







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 4 hours ago









JohnDoea

107730




107730










answered 21 hours ago









al mamun

4519




4519











  • Hello Al Mamum. I think this question should be deleted. You might want to copy the answer and save it in an ODT on your computer, or you'd like to post a question+answer with this answer.
    – JohnDoea
    1 hour ago
















  • Hello Al Mamum. I think this question should be deleted. You might want to copy the answer and save it in an ODT on your computer, or you'd like to post a question+answer with this answer.
    – JohnDoea
    1 hour ago















Hello Al Mamum. I think this question should be deleted. You might want to copy the answer and save it in an ODT on your computer, or you'd like to post a question+answer with this answer.
– JohnDoea
1 hour ago




Hello Al Mamum. I think this question should be deleted. You might want to copy the answer and save it in an ODT on your computer, or you'd like to post a question+answer with this answer.
– JohnDoea
1 hour ago


-

Popular posts from this blog

Peggy Mitchell

Image
EastEnders character This article is about the soap opera character. For the British tennis player, see Peggy Michell. For the author, see Margaret Mitchell. Peggy Mitchell Barbara Windsor as Peggy Mitchell (2008) EastEnders character Portrayed by Jo Warne (1991) Barbara Windsor (1994–2016) Duration 1991, 1994–2010, 2013–2016 First appearance Episode 650 30 April 1991  ( 1991-04-30 ) Last appearance Episode 5286 17 May 2016  ( 2016-05-17 ) (appearance) Episode 5287 19 May 2016 (voiceover) Introduced by Michael Ferguson (1991) Barbara Emile (1994) Louise Berridge (2004) Kate Harwood (2005) Lorraine Newman (2013) Dominic Treadwell-Collins (2014) Spin-off appearances The Mitchells - Naked Truths (1998) Classification Former; regular Profile Other names Peggy Butcher Occupation Barmaid Businesswoman Pub landlady Jo Warne as Peggy Mitchell (1991) Family Family Mitchell Father Jack Martin Mother Lily Martin Sisters Aunt ...
Read more

Palaiologos

Image
Palaiologos Παλαιολόγος Palaeologus, Palaeologue Imperial Family Double-headed eagle with the family cypher Country Byzantine Empire, Duchy of Montferrat (remaining lineage after Empire annexed by Ottomans) Founded 11th century  ( 11th century ) Founder Nikephoros Palaiologos (first known) Final ruler Constantine XI Palaiologos (Byzantine Empire) Margaret Paleologa (Montferrat) Titles Byzantine Emperor Marquess of Montferrat Style(s) "Augustus" "Basileus" "Autokrator" Traditions Greek Orthodoxy (predominantly) Roman Catholicism (remaining lineage in Montferrat) Dissolution 1533  ( 1533 ) Cadet branches Claimants: House of Kastrioti (defunct) House of Rurik (defunct) Palaiologan dynasty Chronology Michael VIII 1259–1282 with Andronikos II as co-emperor, 1261–1282 Andronikos II 1282–1328 with Michael IX (1294–1320) and Andronikos III (1321–1328) as co-emperors Andronikos III 1328–1341 John...
Read more

The Forum (Inglewood, California)

Image
The Forum "LA Forum" Prairie Ave. façade of The Forum in 2014 Full name The Forum, presented by Chase Former names The Forum (1967–1988) Great Western Forum (1988–2003) Address 3900 W. Manchester Blvd Location Inglewood, California Coordinates Coordinates: 33°57′29″N 118°20′31″W  /  33.95806°N 118.34194°W  / 33.95806; -118.34194 Public transit     Downtown Inglewood station Owner The Madison Square Garden Company Operator MSG Entertainment Seating type Reserved Capacity 17,500 Half-bowl: 8,000 Construction Broke ground July 1, 1966  ( 1966-07-01 ) Opened December 30, 1967  ( 1967-12-30 ) Renovated 1988, 2012–2014 Construction cost $16 million Renovation: 2014: $76.5 million Architect Charles Luckman Associates (original) Brisbin Brook Beynon (renovation) Structural engineer Johnson & Nielsen Associates (original) Severud Associates (renovation) Genera...
Read more