Ever came across a case where cmod 777 was a valid solution

[James Knott]

William Muriithi wrote:
> Afternoon,
>
> Over time, I have came across cases where someone has "fixed" a
> problem or suggested changing file permission to 777 and have always
> ended up ranting about it.  That got me thinking today, could there be
> a solution that would genuinely need read, write and execute
> permission for user, group and others?  I sincerely can not think of
> any and wonder if any of us here have come across such a case.
>
> Please educate me.
>
>
Symbolic links often have 777, but they would follow the permissions of 
the file they link to.

--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists