On Sunday 13 March 2005 2:55 pm, Chris Walker wrote:
Have you tried, or asking a.n.other to try, editing those files on a Windows box to see if it's a problem with the file itself?
Thanks all who responded but I have now solved this problem.
In a perfect example of not checking the bleeding obvious, it was because some of the files were set to read only (this makes sense as for a while all of my mp3's were held on CD's and I think when you copy files from a CD in windows the Read only attribute stays set)
To be honest in my defence I didn't even know ext3 had a read only file attribute, the existence of which seems a little redundant anyway.
The behaviour seems a little erratic in Linux (remember that I was able to delete the file using konqueror, but not change the meta info) and it has been completely erratic in Windows except when in the DOS (s)hell for ages
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 19:37:46 +0000, Wayne Stallwood ALUGlist@digimatic.plus.com wrote:
Thanks all who responded but I have now solved this problem. In a perfect example of not checking the bleeding obvious, it was because some of the files were set to read only (this makes sense as for a while all of my mp3's were held on CD's and I think when you copy files from a CD in windows the Read only attribute stays set) To be honest in my defence I didn't even know ext3 had a read only file attribute, the existence of which seems a little redundant anyway. The behaviour seems a little erratic in Linux (remember that I was able to delete the file using konqueror, but not change the meta info) and it has been completely erratic in Windows except when in the DOS (s)hell for ages
Being able to remove write privilages is very important! Imagine if any user could write to any file they fancied ...
On Monday 14 March 2005 10:13 pm, Tim Green wrote:
Being able to remove write privilages is very important! Imagine if any user could write to any file they fancied ...
I was referring more to the read only file attribute rather than read only file permissions, I agree that file permissions are very important but when you have them I don't see the point in a separate read only flag (this is a windows complaint).
What I didn't understand is that the read only attribute when used from within Windows to a samba share adjusts the file permissions (on the Linux end) to emulate the read only behaviour in windows. So you can have a folder set up that you think you have rwx permissions for as a given user, but if one of the files you copy into it from within Windows has the read only file attribute set then you will not be able to modify that file (from within either Windows or non root Linux, because it will be set to r_x) until you reset the permissions (from within Linux) or uncheck the read only file attribute (from within Windows)
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 23:40:32 +0000, Wayne Stallwood ALUGlist@digimatic.plus.com wrote:
What I didn't understand is that the read only attribute when used from within Windows to a samba share adjusts the file permissions (on the Linux end) to emulate the read only behaviour in windows. So you can have a folder set up that you think you have rwx permissions for as a given user, but if one of the files you copy into it from within Windows has the read only file attribute set then you will not be able to modify that file (from within either Windows or non root Linux, because it will be set to r_x) until you reset the permissions (from within Linux) or uncheck the read only file attribute (from within Windows)
Ah, well, at least vi warns you about trying to edit read only files, and it does let you write to the file (how? not sure of all conditions) if you force it with ":w!"
rm also warns you about write protected files, but can be forced too.
Are there many other permissions permissive applications?
Tim.
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 7:15 pm, Tim Green wrote:
Ah, well, at least vi warns you about trying to edit read only files, and it does let you write to the file (how? not sure of all conditions) if you force it with ":w!"
rm also warns you about write protected files, but can be forced too.
I think it is the case that if you have enough privileges to adjust the file permissions (i.e you are root or the owner of the file) then the force ! makes a temporary change so that the file can be written.
-
Tim Green -
Wayne Stallwood