> You did mean 664 :) > > Minor technicality - it is really OCTAL (base 8) not binary - the 664 is > the octal representation of the (binary) bits. > > Okay, I'm getting really technical, but I was an assembly language > programmer for many years on octal-based systems. I may not know how to > make a web page file list display full width (well I do now), but I do know > my octal arithmetic. I do that math in my head :) > Don't know about assembly language, but for the Linux 644 worked fine.
Okay - off topic, but important to understand this is you are setting permissions:
There is no such thing as *Linux 644* - the 644 is independent of Linux, it is an *OCTAL* number, base 8. My comment about the 644 being wrong was referring to the example that showed a bunch of bits that represented 664 - in the example: 110110100 = 664, not 644. 644= 110100100. That is just how it was typed in the example from the other post.
But for a quick lesson in OCTAL (and hex, base 16): Binary Octal 001 1 010 2 011 3 100 4 101 5 110 6 111 7 1000 10 (same as 001000) 1001 11 - hex 9 1010 12 - hex A 1011 13 - hex B 1100 14 - hex C 1101 15 - hex D 1110 16 - hex E 1111 17 - hex F 10000 20 - hex 10 So 110100100 is broken as 110 100 100, or 644 That is all I was trying to point out :) Regards,Jale