Peter Leftwich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Erg, I knew that! :-/ It's just that I view the whole "u+x" scheme as
> "the easy way" and that real Unix junkies roll up their sleeves and use
> numeric perm's such as 0777 and 644 :-)
Assuming that you're also referring to the scheme's use in "chm
On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Erik Trulsson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 07:13:51PM -0400, Peter Leftwich wrote:
> > Two questions, first is why doesn't this work, or is there a flag I can use
> > with "ls?"
> > # find . -type f -perm +x
> > find: -perm: x: illegal mode string
> > # find . -type f -per
On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Peter Leftwich wrote:
> Two questions, first is why doesn't this work, or is there a flag I can use
> with "ls?"
>
> # find . -type f -perm +x
> find: -perm: x: illegal mode string
> # find . -type f -perm +x -print
> find: -perm: x: illegal mode string
You need to use the o
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 07:13:51PM -0400, Peter Leftwich wrote:
> Two questions, first is why doesn't this work, or is there a flag I can use
> with "ls?"
>
> # find . -type f -perm +x
> find: -perm: x: illegal mode string
> # find . -type f -perm +x -print
> find: -perm: x: illegal mode string
Two questions, first is why doesn't this work, or is there a flag I can use
with "ls?"
# find . -type f -perm +x
find: -perm: x: illegal mode string
# find . -type f -perm +x -print
find: -perm: x: illegal mode string
Question II: Is find always recursive (through subdirectories) or can this
be
