SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Originally posted by Jaxån As long as I gave an answer to the question, it should read "Fine". If you put RTFM in your "answer", it should prob. be read as the other interpretation.
RTFM can be interpretated in may ways. Both "Read The Fine Manual" and "Read The F*cking Manual", and both are right answer. That is the answer is in the manual. The most important things you could learn, is where you self can look up the information. But sometimes you can't figure it out, or find it. That's when to ask.
dude, RTFM manual stands for READ THE F*CKING MANUAL - PERIOD... the "F" doesn't stand for "fine" or "fantastic" or "friendly" or "familiar" or "fabulous" or "fancy" or none of that, you don't get to invent your own meaning for the "F" and then expect everyone to somehow magically "know" which meaning you've given the "F" when you bust-out a RTFM on a thread...
terms like "fine/friendly" are used when giving the acronym's definition: it's done that way so people can figure out the letter "F" without needing the ACTUAL "F word" spelled-out for them in the slang dictionary or wherever you got your "fine" idea...
the acronym doesn't change "as long as you gave an answer to the question" or anything like that... please don't use terms like RTFM unless your objective is in fact to be rude... this ain't slashdot, okay?? thanks...
Distribution: Slackware 9.1 but FUBAR with packages I compile myself, and OpenBSD (not exactly a distro) on QEMU
Posts: 153
Rep:
Funny debate about RTFM...
It works with and without "defaults". After looking at the man page, well, "defaults" seem to be a bit dangerous... But it doesn't work without umask=0.
As for the directory/files executable bit, you can look up the man page.
Originally posted by small_boy22 Is it possible to mount a FAT32 partition and have only the DIRECTORIES to have the execution allowed???
Because when i mount my fat32 partiotion i get everything inside to be executable !!!!!!!!that's bad...
i think you can do it if you specify a dmask and adjust your umask accordingly:
Quote:
umask=value
Set the umask (the bitmask of the permissions that
are not present). The default is the umask of the
current process. The value is given in octal.
dmask=value Set the umask applied to directories only. The
default is the umask of the current process. The
value is given in octal.
fmask=value
Set the umask applied to regular files only. The
default is the umask of the current process. The
value is given in octal.
win32sux: Oh, you did a RTFM, how nice .
If you then tell where you get the information, everyone will actually learn something usefull for later use. Nice...
As I wrote earlier, to teach (inform, enlight, whatever) newbies where to look for information is the best you can do to help. Could even be better than givning the answer. But if you don't want to be rude, you should also give an answer.
And the it's was you who interpreted my answer as rude. I think you can give a polite answer with an RTFM in it. And you could be really rude without using RTFM. It's all in the readers eye (and mind, like where beauty is).
anyways, i'd like to point-out to anyone reading this that there's actually THREE separate issues on this thread... i'm posting them again in the hope that it will help get everyone's issues resolved, as right now there's still no confirmation that any of the issues have been resolved even though there have been several replies for all the issues...
the first issue is (obviously) the first post of the thread - the OP hasn't posted again (yet)...
Originally posted by aje I have two vfat partitions that are shared between slackware and windows. I can access the drives and contents on them fine as root, but not as user. My fstab line for the drives read as follows:
Code:
/dev/hda1 /windows vfat defaults,umask=000 0 0
How must I modify this line to access the drive as a user?
the second issue is ntfs-related, posted by wpyhhere:
Quote:
Originally posted by wpyh This is a bit off-topic, but I had to use umask=000 in fstab or I won't be able to access my ntfs partition. Is that ok? I've disabled ntfs write support in the kernel, btw.
the third issue is small_boy22's question regarding directories on vfat:
Quote:
Originally posted by small_boy22 Is it possible to mount a FAT32 partition and have only the DIRECTORIES to have the execution allowed???
Because when i mount my fat32 partiotion i get everything inside to be executable !!!!!!!!that's bad...
IMHO it would be a good idea if we could specify which of the posters (aje, wpyh, and small_boy22) we are addressing when we contribute our two cents on the thread... this way we can have better organization and we will have a better chance of finding solutions to all three issues (in case they haven't already been found)...
oh, and BTW: aje, wpyh, and small_boy22 please don't forget to confirm that your issues have been resolved (and which method resolved them) if that's the case...
Sorry I hadn't come back to post whether or not a solution worked. I did a reboot and my fstab was working fine ... Is it normal to need to reboot to sort of "refresh" fstab information? My fstab line for the drive(s) now read:
Originally posted by aje Sorry I hadn't come back to post whether or not a solution worked. I did a reboot and my fstab was working fine ... Is it normal to need to reboot to sort of "refresh" fstab information? My fstab line for the drive(s) now read:
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.