Tuesday 06 Sep 2005 15:08 samaye Pieter Hulshoff alekhiit:

case: Can you remove _any_ files from your windows partition?

As root yes. I still can do anything as root. (Sometimes even that doesn't work but I can't give instructions to reproduce that bug.) As ordinary user, I could do it only to /windows/c folder but not to some of its subfolders, nor to /windows/d. Of course I can't test all folders/subfolders manually. --    (o-   Penguin #395953 lives at http://samvit.org    //\   subsisting on ancient Indian wisdom ...    V_/_  and modern computing efficiency! :)

Does anyone know of a good drag n drop style FTP client for Linux/KDE? The FTP clients built into FireFox and Konq aren't very good and the command line client makes it difficult to copy over directories. An equivalent to SmartFTP for MS Windows would be ideal. Cheers Matthew

Try Igloo FTP

Or... just use Konqueror. It works fine as a basic FTP client... C

Tuesday 06 Sep 2005 15:32 samaye Matthew Stringer alekhiit:

Does anyone know of a good drag n drop style FTP client for Linux/KDE?

Hello Matthew. 'Twould have been more convenient if you had started this as a separate thread. Looks like you hit reply to my post about Konq, resulting an unrelated sub-thread in that Konq thread. Anyway, how about Kasablanca then? http://kasablanca.berlios.de/ --    (o-   Penguin #395953 lives at http://samvit.org    //\   subsisting on ancient Indian wisdom ...    V_/_  and modern computing efficiency! :)

On Tuesday 06 Sep 2005 15:32 samaye Matthew Stringer alekhiit:

Does anyone know of a good drag n drop style FTP client for Linux/KDE?

Konqueror! Bryan ******************************************************** Powered by SuSE Linux 9.2 Professional KDE 3.3.0 KMail 1.7.1 This is a Microsoft-free computer Bryan S. Tyson bryantyson@earthlink.net ********************************************************

On Tuesday 06 September 2005 06:02 am, Matthew Stringer wrote:

Does anyone know of a good drag n drop style FTP client for Linux/KDE?

The FTP clients built into FireFox and Konq aren't very good and the command line client makes it difficult to copy over directories.

An equivalent to SmartFTP for MS Windows would be ideal.

Cheers

Matthew ========

Have you tried Krusader? Still don't know why it isn't included in the standard SuSE distribution. end of line Lee -- --- KMail v1.8.2 --- SuSE Linux Pro v9.2 --- Registered Linux User #225206 There's no problem so awful that you can't add some guilt to it and make it even worse! ...Calvin & Hobbes

Tuesday 06 Sep 2005 15:17 samaye Jonas Helgi Palsson alekhiit:

First thing: Check how the filesystem is mounted. If it is mounted 'ro' then you can not change any file on that filesystem. Even as root.

As you can see in the attached fstab, it is mounted as rw only.

If your filesystem is NTFS, then it cannot be written to in Linux without risking dataloss.

Which is why I opted to use FAT even on Win XP.

Another thing (which is not an issue on a Windows partition) : If you do not have writepermisson on the directory which the file resides in you cannot remove the file. You can change it, but not remove it.

I do have write permission to both the file and the directory. I checked this. Thanks for your attention and help. --    (o-   Penguin #395953 lives at http://samvit.org    //\   subsisting on ancient Indian wisdom ...    V_/_  and modern computing efficiency! :)

Tuesday 06 Sep 2005 16:41 samaye Jonas Helgi Palsson alekhiit:

But can you delete the file in a terminal (e.g. konsole)?

Sorry for the delay. With the following lines in my fstab /dev/sda1 /windows/c vfat rw,users,uid=samjnaa,gid=users,utf8=true 0 0 /dev/sda5 /windows/d vfat rw,users,uid=samjnaa,gid=users,utf8=true 0 0 samjnaa@linux:/windows/d/Transit/Buffer> rm OOo-2.0-beta2.zip rm: cannot remove `OOo-2.0-beta2.zip': Permission denied Konqueror at /windows/d/Transit/Buffer shows the permissions of the OOo-2.0-beta2.zip file to be rwxr-xr-x, owner to be samjnaa (me) and group to be users. But at the same time: samjnaa@linux:/windows/d/Transit/Buffer> su Password: linux:/windows/d/Transit/Buffer # rm OOo-2.0-beta2.zip linux:/windows/d/Transit/Buffer # Of course, su can do anything... --    (o-   Penguin #395953 lives at http://samvit.org    //\   subsisting on ancient Indian wisdom ...    V_/_  and modern computing efficiency! :)

Shriramana, On Tuesday 27 September 2005 09:19, Shriramana Sharma wrote:

Tuesday 06 Sep 2005 16:41 samaye Jonas Helgi Palsson alekhiit:

...

But can you delete the file in a terminal (e.g. konsole)?

Sorry for the delay.

With the following lines in my fstab

/dev/sda1 /windows/c vfat rw,users,uid=samjnaa,gid=users,utf8=true 0 0 /dev/sda5 /windows/d vfat rw,users,uid=samjnaa,gid=users,utf8=true 0 0

samjnaa@linux:/windows/d/Transit/Buffer> rm OOo-2.0-beta2.zip rm: cannot remove `OOo-2.0-beta2.zip': Permission denied

Konqueror at /windows/d/Transit/Buffer shows the permissions of the OOo-2.0-beta2.zip file to be rwxr-xr-x, owner to be samjnaa (me) and group to be users.

If it really is a FAT file system, then the uid= and gid= in the fstab will apply to _all_ files and directories within that mounted file system. As Patrick S. hinted, the ability to delete a file is primarily governed by the permissions of the directory in which it resides (to speak loosely, since this creates a misunderstanding about the nature of the organization and structure of Unix file systems). In particular, in order to unlink a file (the system call associated with the "rm" command) you must have effective permissions to both write and execute the directory holding the entry you're trying to remove. This follows the usual pattern: If you own the directory, then it's the owner's permissions that apply. If you don't own the directory but your primary or one of your (current) access groups is equal to the group of the directory, then the group-level permissions govern the operation. If neither of the previous two apply, then the other permissions govern the operation. So, you may need to use the chmod command to alter the directory's permissions before you can remove the file. Lastly, are you sure that the file system is FAT? If it's actually NTFS (I think the mount might still succeed even if the fstab entry misidentifies it) then you cannot modify the file system. There is no (non-experimental) NTFS write capability in Linux, so far.

...

Randall Schulz

Shriramana, On Tuesday 04 October 2005 03:02, Shriramana Sharma wrote:

Wednesday 28 Sep 2005 07:31 samaye Randall R Schulz alekhiit:

...

...

...

As Patrick S. hinted, the ability to delete a file is primarily governed by the permissions of the directory in which it resides (to speak

...

...

loosely, since this creates a misunderstanding about the nature of the organization and structure of Unix file systems).

In what way?

I've explained directories, files and inodes too many times on this list. Please either search its archives or find other better written expositions on the Internet.

...

In particular, in order to unlink a file (the system call associated with the "rm" command) you must have effective permissions to both write and execute the directory holding the entry you're trying to remove.

Both write and execute? ... But why execute?

Because Unix did it that way and it has never changed. Execute permissions on a directory are interpreted as permissions to search through the directory for an entry. It's needed for any operation on a file within that directory. It means that if the name in a directory entry is known, you can access the file system entity to which it refers (that wording alludes to an aspect the answer to your earlier question) but still cannot discover the names of other entries in that directory. Keep in mind that if you don't have read permission on a directory, you cannot use wildcards, since expanding them requires the shell (or other software that implements file-name wildcard matching) to read the directory and perform the matching against actual directory entries.

I also find that it is only necessary that the immediate containing directory be accessible. /win/d/Transit is r-x to me, but /win/d/Transit/Downloads is rwx so I can delete the file /win/d/Transit/Downloads/foo.txt which is rwx to me. How come this is so? Going by the shelf analogy, you cannot access a shelf which is placed within a locked room, right?

I don't consider the warehouse analogy a useful one. I'd suggest you drop it. If you use an absolute path name, you'll need execute permission from slash all the way along the path to the directory holding the entry you want to delete. There you'll need execute and write. If you use a relative name, then you need execute permissions on the directories named in that relative path name.

...

Lastly, are you sure that the file system is FAT?

Yep.

...

misidentifies it) then you cannot modify the file system. There is no (non-experimental) NTFS write capability in Linux, so far.

Why is NTFS support in Linux taking so much time to mature whereas FAT support is full? I mean, it's not as if NTFS was just introduced yesterday?

FAT is a trivial file system. NTFS is rather sophisticated. Microsoft does not make it easy to reverse engineer read-write software for that file system. At least that's how I understand it. Randall Schulz

Shriramana Sharma a écrit :

I also found out that mounting my vfat partition (confirmed not NTFS) with the option rw in /etc/fstab does not automatically set the attributes of all the files and directories in that partition to rw even for the owner. And yes, there is a uid option (*and* a gid option).

The relevant line from my fstab:

/dev/sda5 /win/d vfat rw,user,uid=samjnaa,gid=users 0 0

Kindly advise on how I can automatically set the attributes to rwx at least for the owner (me).

Thanks.

Hello, Add: umask=000 as an option ih fstab and everybody will have rwx permissions. Michel.

Shriramana Sharma a écrit :

Tuesday 04 Oct 2005 16:00 samaye Catimimi alekhiit:

...

Add: umask=000 as an option ih fstab and everybody will have rwx permissions.

Um, thanks,. but how do I give only the owner (set by uid=) the rwx permissions? I tried reading man umask and info umask, but it's too much gobbledygook for me!

Try umask=077, it should do what you want.