[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Sheflug] A question on Ownership



On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 02:04:43 +0100
Will Newton <will [at] misconception.org.uk> wrote:

> On Monday 15 Apr 2002 12:35 am, Chris J wrote:
> 
> > Hmm...must see if Digital UNIX (strong BSD) and Solaris (strong SysV)
> > do this (which means summat to look at at work tomoz [if I can find a
> > Sun box to play on]). Certainly a new one, but then I've never seen a
> > directory without execute :) I certainly don't recall ever seeing this
> > behaviour documented anyware.
> 
> I was under the impression that Solaris was more BSD than SysV. To the
> extent that Sun is a Berkeley company, although it does have SysV
> features I thought it was derived from SunOS which was almost the same
> as BSD 4.3.

SunOS was BSD, Solaris is completely SysV.

To confuse things though Solaris is also known as SunOS 5.x, any version
of SunOS over & including 5 is Solaris and hence SysV.

> And unfortunately I also thought DEC UNIX was more of a SysV type of
> thing.

Dec UNIX (Tru64) is a bit of a crossbreed of BSD and SysV... it has got
bits of both.

http://www.osdata.com/oses/decunix.htm

> BTW the x bit is equatable to "listable" when added to a directory. If a
> user has no x bit they have no access to list a directory. Root can read
> and write regardless of bits, and so can also list regardless of bits
> also. Or am I missing the point?

That's the standard unix behaviour.

--Andrew

-- 
sparc sun4c stuff : http://www.lostgeneration.freeserve.co.uk/sparc
personal email    : bob at lostgeneration dot freeserve dot co dot uk

Attachment: pgp00013.pgp
Description: PGP signature