Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!

Click here to return to the 'WARNING, The above article is mentally ill' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
WARNING, The above article is mentally ill
Authored by: SOX on Oct 24, '08 02:01:31PM


never execute chmod -R /Users/you 700 or 755

that will make every single file marked as a unix executable.

instead, this is more benign:
chmod -R u+rwX

[ Reply to This | # ]
In a word: yes
Authored by: ilikeimac on Oct 24, '08 04:43:20PM

Like CarlRJ and SOX, I too was surprised to see the poster recommend chmod -R 700 /Users/sally. I'll add "reckless" to their colorful descriptions. These commands are doing a whole lot more than just adding the ACL entry discussed in the article.

Personally, I ran only the last command. This should be the only thing necessary for almost everyone. The rest of the commands are either paranoia or complete frivolity.

One more thing: the chmod commands should not have to begin with "sudo". You can just drop that and start the command with "chmod". It would only make a difference if some of the files in your home directory were in fact owned by others, which is rare for most of us, and impossible if you ran the sudo chown… command successfully. In general you not not use sudo to run something unless it is really necessary and you understand the command being run.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wholeheartedly agreed
Authored by: ClassicUser on Oct 25, '08 04:45:07PM
Great hint - BUT, as CarlRJ & SOX have indicated, the forced chmod -R {absolute mode} approach should NEVER be used, as it almost certainly will result in undesired behavior for several files within the user's hierarchy.

Instead, the symbolic mode (e.g. "chmod -R u+rwX,g-w,o-w") should be utilized instead, followed by similar (but different) entries for the special settings for the Public, Sites, and Drop Box folders.

robg: Can you please update the hint, so that others are not affected by this issue? If we're providing readers with an explicit set of commands to follow, then I'd hope it isn't a problem to provide a more-correct set of commands.

[ Reply to This | # ]