On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 08:08 -0500, John A. Sullivan III wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 13:55 +0100, Oleksandr Shneyder wrote:
> > John A. Sullivan III schrieb:
> > > Hello, all. Amidst our very successful testing of X2Go, we came across
> > > a permissions issue. Our environment sets a default um
John A. Sullivan III schreef:
> Thanks, Paul. That's a very creative idea but it means either editing
> thousands (hopefully) of clients spread all over the world or replacing
> the startkde file with a script and remembering that after every upgrade
> for every virtual machine (we map one virtua
On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 13:55 +0100, Oleksandr Shneyder wrote:
> John A. Sullivan III schrieb:
> > Hello, all. Amidst our very successful testing of X2Go, we came across
> > a permissions issue. Our environment sets a default umask of 007 rather
> > than the standard 022. This was honored in our N
John A. Sullivan III schrieb:
> Hello, all. Amidst our very successful testing of X2Go, we came across
> a permissions issue. Our environment sets a default umask of 007 rather
> than the standard 022. This was honored in our NoMachine environment.
> However, we recently started having access co
On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 13:05 +0100, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
> John A. Sullivan III schreef:
> > Hello, all. Amidst our very successful testing of X2Go, we came across
> > a permissions issue. Our environment sets a default umask of 007 rather
> > than the standard 022. This was honored in our No
John A. Sullivan III schreef:
> Hello, all. Amidst our very successful testing of X2Go, we came across
> a permissions issue. Our environment sets a default umask of 007 rather
> than the standard 022. This was honored in our NoMachine environment.
> However, we recently started having access co
