Re: vi stealing SYSTEM-owned permissions and ownership

["Larry Hall (Cygwin)" <reply-to-list-only-lh@cygwin.com>]

On 11/4/2013 9:50 AM, Lavrentiev, Anton (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C] wrote:
>>> Haha, yes. But if my students have to administer remote
>> production-machines, most of the time they have no other option. I want them
>> to succeed where others fail.
>
> Reading this thread, it looks like it digressed far away from the original point
> ($subject) as to why "vi" did not keep the original owner of an edited file.
> (also pointed out was that "nano" did)...  A reasonable expectation, IMO.

I noted the same thing (to myself).  When I looked at the information
provided, I was left with the distinct impression that the 'vi' in use
was not a Cygwin version.  The fact that the file edited with it had no
POSIX permissions was a red flag for me.  I was going to suggest checking
this but as the conversation had already drifted into other areas, it
seemed of small concern to the larger issues being discussed.

-- 
Larry

_____________________________________________________________________

A: Yes.
 > Q: Are you sure?
 >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
 >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple