What are you trying to accomplish? I'm no expert with
WinXP, but I've done a lot of development on NT (sigh...)
and never needed a chmod from the command line. It would
help if you could tell us what you're trying to do,
rather than focus on one step of the process.
(It sounds to me like you're trying to follow an
example from a book without really understanding what's
going on. If you explain what you're trying to accomplish,
we'll be able to help you with the how and the why.)
--
F
o
x
t
r
o
t
U
n
i
f
o
r
m
Found a typo in this node? /msg me
The hell with paco, vote for Erudil!
| [reply] |
Are you using the ActiveState or IndigoPerl versions, or the version with Cygwin, or another version?
While my experience with Windows XP is limited, with the other versions of Windows (9x, Me, 2K) that I have seen/used, you can include in your PATH the directory your perl executable is in, or create a file-type association for perl to the handled by the perl executable. In those cases, I have not seen a version of chmod() used (other than under Cygwin).
| [reply] |
chmod isn't supported on win32 operating systems, as they don't have file ownership/permission systems anything like what *nix does. It makes perfect sense that you're getting "bad command or filename" errors, because chmod IS a bad command for this platform.
-Any sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from doubletalk.
| [reply] |
Untrue. chmod as a command does not exist on Win32, unless you add it yourself via, the POSIX package in the Windows resource Kit, via Cygwin or via Perl Power Tools or the like.
However, file ownership/permission systems are most definitely supported by Windows NT and its descendants, Windows 2000 and XP.
In fact, permissions and access restrictions are far more sophisticated and fine grained in NT than in ordinary Unix systems (there are ACL systems available for some Unix variants).
The command used to modify these permissions from the command line is called cacls. Type cacls /h for details.
Regards,
Helgi Briem
| [reply] |
Thanks for the clarification, but I didn't say they didn't exist (I know about NT/2k/XP ACLs) I just said that they weren't anything like what *nix has. To me, this looks like a newbie typing "chmod" in a DOS console, I don't think they really care about file permissions/modes other than to get their script running.
-Any sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from doubletalk.
| [reply] |