Bash scripts

Kevin Gordon kgordon420 at
Sun Apr 24 14:49:36 EDT 2011


Continued to play with this.  Went into nautilus on an ext2 formatted
card, and there is a checkbox in the panel for allowing execution of
files.  The owner and other permission boxes didn't seem to do
anything; but, clicking that on *did* work. Also, you were correct
about it needing to not be FAT, checking that box, even though it sill
displays, didn't 'stick' for FAT. Thanks.



On Monday, April 18,
2011, Kevin Gordon <kgordon420 at> wrote:
> Sascha:
> The file system actually had no bearing on the issue I was having, whether ext2,
> ext3, or FAT32, the symptoms were identical - recent versions of udisks now does not allow
> 'direct' execution of scripts from auto-mounted removable media.
> Also,
> there is some debate as to whether putting a journalling fs onto an SD
> or USB drive is wise, as it might half its life by in essence doubling the number of writes.  In
> general,  I tend to stick with the factory default unless I need
> multiple partitions, symbolic link, or specific linux-swap support, since I presume the
> manufacturer has formatted it with the right number of blocks, units,
> etc to best match their controller/memory config.  If I need those, I will still use ext2.  Call me optimistic :-)
> Cheers,
> KG
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 4:13 AM, Sascha Silbe <sascha-ml-reply-to-2011-2 at> wrote:
> Excerpts from Kevin Gordon's message of Mon Apr 18 00:36:26 +0200 2011:
>> But, since my main use of this technique is to
>> semi-automate the process of installing a slew of custom activities and
>> rpm's upon initial build and deployment, having to manually change every
>> machine manually to basically avoid 5 keystrokes, was sort of
>> counter-productive  :-)
> If you're only using this USB stick with Linux machines, why don't you
> just format it using a file system with POSIX semantics, i.e. ext3?
> Sascha
> --

More information about the Devel mailing list