Talk:Umask

message: Is this the proper place to really confuse people whit the
n as material nonimplication or abjunction  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGerman (talk • contribs) 01:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a few changes to that section, moving the more esoteric stuff toward the end. Sparkie82 (t•c)  01:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: masking logic and truth table

message: Why were the demonstrative examples removed?
DGerman (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has more than a dozen examples. I don't see that any have been removed since the article was rewritten. Which edit or example are you referring to? Sparkie82 (t•c)  01:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

text: I refer to ( see version 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Umask&oldid=466169604
  $ umask 0022
  $ mkdir AnyoneCanListMyDir
  $ touch AnyoneCanReadMyFile.log
  $ ls -l
  drwxr-xr-x 2 dave develop 512 Aug 18 20:59 AnyoneCanListMyDir
  -rw-r--r-- 1 dave develop   0 Aug 18 20:59 AnyoneCanReadMyFile.log
Additionally the demonstrative 
Calculating resultant permissions example
This article now suffers, as is so often the case, in that it defines what the command does and gives examples of the command with the utmost attention to the finest details,
but does not  suggest "what good is this stuff?"
PS I'm not sure that after all the explanation regarding the mask bit creation/manipulation that the logic section clarifies anything.
I look forward to your follow up and defer some changes until then.
DGerman (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples removed, why

message: The sentence beginning 'If the mask has a bit set to "1", that means the corresponding file permission ...' can be simplified.  The words "set to" are distracting. "Always" and "subsequently" are unnecessary.  There is no reason to anticipate a mask applying selectively or retroactively.  Also, the singular case suffices; no need for the plural.  This sentence has the same meaning and is more easily understood.  'A "1" bit means the corresponding permission will be disabled when a file is created.'  If no objection surfaces in a few weeks, I'll edit.  Regards, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mask effect 

message: PAM also has a bearing on the umask.  Discussed in http://www.tldp.org/LDP/www.debian.org/doc/manuals/securing-debian-howto/ch4.en.html for example.  If someone can write a paragraph or two, that will help.  Regards, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  umask and Pluggable Authentication Modules 

message: The current version of the Article shows
umask command issued         	How the mask is set after the command is issued
(this entry has been removed) umask 777	allow read, write, and execute permission for all (security risk) [Comment: do not even show this really bad idea DGerman]
umask 000                              	disallow read, write, and execute permission for all
but:
umask command issued	How the mask is set after the command is issued
umask 777                     	actually disallows read, write, and execute permission for all (e.g. 644 - 777 = 000)
umask 000                     	actually allows read, write, and execute permission for all (e.g. 644 - 000 = 644)
please correct me if I am wrong (I did not want to edit the article without confirmation because this made me unsure)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.89.159.155 (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Command Line Examples 

message: I have reworked the symbolic notation section. Sticking to the syntax and operations of the umask command.
There was way too much explanation as to what the resulting file attributes meant. 
This is felt with extensively in  BOTH the chmod article and file permissions.
Please don't include poor examples like setting file permissions so all users can write to the file.
DGerman (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  rework symbolic notation section 

message: It seems that including the function call information unnecessarily complicates this article.
Very few people will be interested in this.
I will remove it in the future unless someone STRONGLY objects.
DGerman (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Function call 

message: I quibble at the introductory "In computing, umask is".  I think "umask" is a notion in UNIX, et al., operating systems, not a notion in computer science in general.
Jmichael ll (talk)   — Preceding undated comment added 03:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose of using "In <some domain>" at the beginning of an article is to orient the reader. If some reader is looking for a type of halloween mask and comes upon this article, this will set them straight.  Sparkie82 (t•c)  15:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right.  But I believe that the prior comments indicate that it is not ubiquitous: computing - UNIX is not the empty set, so some qualification seems warranted.  "In UNIX computing, ..." perhaps? 198.182.56.5 (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "umask" really a concept in "computing"? 

message: umask was implemented in Version 7 UNIX, released in 1979. see umask(2).
The motivation came specifically from our PWB/UNIX work at Bell Labs Piscataway, whose efforts included creating the (likely) first real "UNIX computing center" where multiple systems provided support for large numbers of people from different departments and for years the largest such site.  We were often early to encounter some kinds of security problems. Bell Labs Computing Research liked to run their systems in a fairly open fashion, with maximal permissions, with file creation 0666 wired in many programs. (That can be a problem, for example if one created a temp file writable by everyone, and somebody had a program that scanned for such things and opened for writing.)  We wanted to run systems where defaults would be minimal permissions, set on system, group, or individual basis, but explicitly overridden as desired, and without changing code in numerous programs.  Ken&Dennis were always minimalists, so I suggested this (some time in 1977/1978 when I was at Murray Hill) as a really simple way to cover the various ways people wanted to run systems. Most sysadmins could just add a umask call to system startup scripts.JohnMashey (talk) 23:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  History - some more information to clarify 

message: Although purists use p and q with truth tables this seems unnecessary as the table explaining the actions is clearer. Strong objectors are welcome to undo my removal of that small section.
DGerman (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  truth table 

message: it prints the inverted value of the umask applied to 777, or, more formally, 777 AND NOT Umask. "umask --help" also gets that wrong. Heronils (talk) 06:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "umask -S" does not print the value of the umask  

message: https://askubuntu.com/questions/44542/what-is-umask-and-how-does-it-work Heronils (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  For people having issues grasping the article