Typos in Exercise 32.1

herecomesbrod

In Exercise 32.1 an example of adding permissions, rather than replacing them, is given. The syntax of those commands is wrong, as it includes the = symbol as well as the + or - symbol:

Text in exercise:
$ chmod u=+w,g=-w,o=+rw afile
$ chmod ug=rwx,o=-rw afile

Correct format:
$ chmod u+w,g-w,o+rw afile
$ chmod ug=rwx,o-rw afile

lee42x

Hello herecomesbrod, Thank you for pointing this out. It will be updated for the next version.

Regards, Lee

coop

there was an extensive discussion of this in the Bootcamp forum. It is not "wrong", I am on the road and am not able to cut and paste from that discussion, so if you or Luis can do this I would appreciate it. In short the exercise says to try and do different things. This is not an incorrect syntax, just not the one you might use for a certain end.

herecomesbrod

Thanks for your replies Lee and coop.

I understand that you are saying that the examples given are not meant to work in a particular way and are for students to investigate. So it is not a typo, but maybe the way the exercise is presented is a bit confusing.

luisviveropena

Hi,

This is the Coop's answer in this forum thread: https://forum.linuxfoundation.org/discussion/comment/25426#Comment_25426

Luis is pointing out to you things you already know as best I can tell and let me address what you said directly.
.
You are right in some sense and but in another sense you are reading too much into the wording, more than was intended . In >your post you say:
.
"Unfortunately u=+... or u=-... etc. don't work as expected, neither on Ubuntu nor on Centos.
What works is this: ...."
.
The problem is with the phrase "as expected" by which you mean "as I expected". There is nothing in the lab that indicates the = >sign should not perform as it actually does. The purpose of the exercise is to try different things and see what happens, and voila >you learned something. I suppose the lab should not say "The syntax is pretty obvious" as that is the source of the confusion and >we will eliminate it in the next version. So thanks for pointing this out. I'm always amazed when someone raises something about >a phrasing that has been there for a number of years, and has never caused confusion before. Keeps us on our toes.

Regards,
Luis.