Disclaimer: Do not run this command.

  • stupidcasey@lemmy.world
    0·
    2 months ago

    Is a woman telling you:

    “you can do whatever you like, but so can my Ex your mama and the Dallas cowboys.”

    Really that much of a male fantasy?

    • dan@upvote.au
      0·
      2 months ago

      Windows perms are pretty locked down though. Sometimes I can’t delete my own files because I need permission from “Administrator” :/

      You can actually use Windows-style permissions (ACLs) on Linux via setfacl.

      • edinbruh@feddit.itEnglish
        0·
        2 months ago

        If only…

        Those are POSIX acls, and they suck

        We could have had NFSv4 ACL, of which windows ACLs are a subset. In fact, every other unix os did… Except for Linux, they decided it didn’t fit well to Linux. And so we are stuck with UGO permissions, and posix ACLs.

        • dan@upvote.au
          0·
          2 months ago

          Good catch - I should have said that it’s closer to Windows-style ACLs rather than implying that it’s actually the same.

  • neomachino@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    0·
    2 months ago

    Back in my early days of Linux I ran this exact command, I forget why, but for some reason my WiFi stopped working immediately after and then SELinux started yelling at me for some reason. I tried to fix SELinux and most certainly commited an innumerable amount of cardinal sins.

    I had to reinstall whatever distro I was running at the time

  • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
    0·
    2 months ago

    I accidentally did this on a work computer, just going with tab completion. Things started to break very quickly. I don’t think I could even run sudo or rm lol. Total wash. Had to reinstall (this was on my first week in office - so embarrassing!).

  • Hotzilla@sopuli.xyz
    0·
    2 months ago

    I did chmod -R 666 / when I started playing with Linux in 1999. It did not end well.

    Sudo didn’t really exist back then, you ran things as root like real men. /s

      • Hotzilla@sopuli.xyz
        0·
        2 months ago

        6 permission mean read+write, but no execution rights. So you cannot execute any commands and system bricks itself.

        • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          2 months ago
          • sudo is telling the computer to do this with root privileges.
          • chmod sets permissions.
          • Each digit of that three-digit number corresponds to the owner, the group, and other users, respectively. It’s 0–7, where 0 means no access and 7 means access to read, write, and execute. So 077 is the exact inverse of 700, where 077 means “the owner cannot access their own files, but everyone else can read, write, and execute them”. Corresponding 700 to asexuals is joking that nobody but the owner can even so much as touch the files.
          • / is the root directory, i.e. the very top of the filesystem.
            • Cenzorrll@lemmy.world
              0·
              2 months ago

              Just wait until you need to figure out what you want when you want something other than all or none for those permissions. 4 is read, 2 is write, 1 is execute. Add them up to get what you want for each owner/group/other portion.

        • KickMeElmo@sopuli.xyz
          0·
          2 months ago

          7 is read, write, and execute permissions. 700 is owner, but not group or others. 077 means the owner has no permissions, but group and others all have full permissions.

        • Ooops@feddit.org
          0·
          2 months ago

          File permissions…

          allowed to execute=1, allowed to write=2, allowed to read=4

          grouped by owner/group/everyone.

          So one of your own files you have full access to while users in your usergroup are only allowed to read it and nobody else has any permissions would have: 740 (read+write+execute / read / none).