From: Petter Reinholdtsen Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:33:20 +0000 (+0000) Subject: Generated. X-Git-Url: http://pere.pagekite.me/gitweb/homepage.git/commitdiff_plain/c39ac2a781d5767ed935e3555b379ebb70be6dfe Generated. --- diff --git a/blog/Broken_umask_handling_with_sshfs.html b/blog/Broken_umask_handling_with_sshfs.html index e398a9af82..9864e54618 100644 --- a/blog/Broken_umask_handling_with_sshfs.html +++ b/blog/Broken_umask_handling_with_sshfs.html @@ -112,6 +112,9 @@ info: testing umask effect on file creation

So, I can conclude that sshfs is better than smb to a Netapp or a Windows server, but not good enough to be used as a home directory.

+ +

Update 2010-08-26: Reported the issue in +BTS report #594498

Tags: debian edu, english, nuug.
diff --git a/blog/archive/2010/08/08.rss b/blog/archive/2010/08/08.rss index 0ece95941a..23bfdc91e8 100644 --- a/blog/archive/2010/08/08.rss +++ b/blog/archive/2010/08/08.rss @@ -696,6 +696,9 @@ info: testing umask effect on file creation <p>So, I can conclude that sshfs is better than smb to a Netapp or a Windows server, but not good enough to be used as a home directory.</p> + +<p>Update 2010-08-26: Reported the issue in +<a href="http://bugs.debian.org/594498">BTS report #594498</a></p> diff --git a/blog/archive/2010/08/index.html b/blog/archive/2010/08/index.html index 233bd8a542..28d2bbc6f5 100644 --- a/blog/archive/2010/08/index.html +++ b/blog/archive/2010/08/index.html @@ -819,6 +819,9 @@ info: testing umask effect on file creation Windows server, but not good enough to be used as a home directory.

+

Update 2010-08-26: Reported the issue in +BTS report #594498

+
diff --git a/blog/index.html b/blog/index.html index 1e775c949a..8109a36768 100644 --- a/blog/index.html +++ b/blog/index.html @@ -115,6 +115,9 @@ info: testing umask effect on file creation

So, I can conclude that sshfs is better than smb to a Netapp or a Windows server, but not good enough to be used as a home directory.

+ +

Update 2010-08-26: Reported the issue in +BTS report #594498

@@ -967,7 +970,7 @@ it.

-Created by Chronicle v3.2 +Created by Chronicle v3.7

diff --git a/blog/index.rss b/blog/index.rss index b17eaee40b..287b3732ee 100644 --- a/blog/index.rss +++ b/blog/index.rss @@ -104,6 +104,9 @@ info: testing umask effect on file creation <p>So, I can conclude that sshfs is better than smb to a Netapp or a Windows server, but not good enough to be used as a home directory.</p> + +<p>Update 2010-08-26: Reported the issue in +<a href="http://bugs.debian.org/594498">BTS report #594498</a></p> diff --git a/blog/sitemap.xml b/blog/sitemap.xml index aa9b18aba5..44b43f53a3 100644 --- a/blog/sitemap.xml +++ b/blog/sitemap.xml @@ -60,6 +60,11 @@ 0.50 weekly + + http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Broken_umask_handling_with_sshfs.html + 0.50 + weekly + http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/BSAs_p__stander_om_piratkopiering_m__ter_motstand.html 0.50 diff --git a/blog/tags/debian edu/debian edu.rss b/blog/tags/debian edu/debian edu.rss index ea8db95928..a451738af8 100644 --- a/blog/tags/debian edu/debian edu.rss +++ b/blog/tags/debian edu/debian edu.rss @@ -2884,6 +2884,9 @@ info: testing umask effect on file creation <p>So, I can conclude that sshfs is better than smb to a Netapp or a Windows server, but not good enough to be used as a home directory.</p> + +<p>Update 2010-08-26: Reported the issue in +<a href="http://bugs.debian.org/594498">BTS report #594498</a></p> diff --git a/blog/tags/debian edu/index.html b/blog/tags/debian edu/index.html index ffa5b62130..39069103fe 100644 --- a/blog/tags/debian edu/index.html +++ b/blog/tags/debian edu/index.html @@ -3424,6 +3424,9 @@ info: testing umask effect on file creation Windows server, but not good enough to be used as a home directory.

+

Update 2010-08-26: Reported the issue in +BTS report #594498

+
diff --git a/blog/tags/english/english.rss b/blog/tags/english/english.rss index 1c20b42701..48810f0b1c 100644 --- a/blog/tags/english/english.rss +++ b/blog/tags/english/english.rss @@ -3613,6 +3613,9 @@ info: testing umask effect on file creation <p>So, I can conclude that sshfs is better than smb to a Netapp or a Windows server, but not good enough to be used as a home directory.</p> + +<p>Update 2010-08-26: Reported the issue in +<a href="http://bugs.debian.org/594498">BTS report #594498</a></p> diff --git a/blog/tags/english/index.html b/blog/tags/english/index.html index 3af0d8c1de..f3f8c4aa82 100644 --- a/blog/tags/english/index.html +++ b/blog/tags/english/index.html @@ -4361,6 +4361,9 @@ info: testing umask effect on file creation Windows server, but not good enough to be used as a home directory.

+

Update 2010-08-26: Reported the issue in +BTS report #594498

+
diff --git a/blog/tags/nuug/index.html b/blog/tags/nuug/index.html index 7a6f3280a9..0a61679ff2 100644 --- a/blog/tags/nuug/index.html +++ b/blog/tags/nuug/index.html @@ -6148,6 +6148,9 @@ info: testing umask effect on file creation Windows server, but not good enough to be used as a home directory.

+

Update 2010-08-26: Reported the issue in +BTS report #594498

+
diff --git a/blog/tags/nuug/nuug.rss b/blog/tags/nuug/nuug.rss index d041488903..2d21d102fa 100644 --- a/blog/tags/nuug/nuug.rss +++ b/blog/tags/nuug/nuug.rss @@ -4880,6 +4880,9 @@ info: testing umask effect on file creation <p>So, I can conclude that sshfs is better than smb to a Netapp or a Windows server, but not good enough to be used as a home directory.</p> + +<p>Update 2010-08-26: Reported the issue in +<a href="http://bugs.debian.org/594498">BTS report #594498</a></p>