Search Mac Software Downloads
|
DESCRIPTION
Chmod Calculator is a utility for figuring out the premissions number to use with the unix command "chmod" by just simply checking groups permissions that you want to allow.
WHAT'S NEW
Version 1.1:
  • Added Reverse IO. Entering a value in a text box will check the appropiate checkboxes
REQUIREMENTS
Mac OS X 10.3 or later.

Bookmark and Share

SCREENSHOT

Developer:Geke Software
Downloads:4,303
  - Version d/l:2,518
Utilities:System
License:Free
Date:22 Nov 2004
Platform:PPC

OTHER PEOPLE SUGGEST
Suggest something else:
Chmod Calculator User Reviews (10 posts)Write A Review
sort: smiles | time
Dec 11 2008

ALJUK  Every link to this on the web is dead.

Does anyone have a copy they could mail me? Please?

I could trade it for something or whatever.  
(Version 1.1)

praisebury
0
[ 3 Replies - Reply ]
Replies:
Dec 11 2008

ALJUK  I've got it, thanks. Ah, the power of the macupdate community... :)  
(Version 1.1)

praisebury
0
Dec 11 2008

MACUPDATE ADMIN  Where'd you get/find it? We'd like a copy so we can upload it to our server...  
(Version 1.1)

praisebury
0
Dec 12 2008

ALJUK  I could email it or ftp it to you.

What address?  
(Version 1.1)

praisebury
0

Dec 18 2007
****.

HOBY  It's excellent to not have to remember all the chmod values.. since I don't set things very often, this is golden.  
(Version 1.1)

praisebury
0
[ Reply ]
Nov 22 2004

ANONYMOUS  910 K for something that I can easily do in my head, faster. Well, at least it's free.  
(Version 1.1)

praisebury
0
[ Reply ]
Nov 22 2004
*****

MACMANX  I spoke to soon with my last review. I asked for reverse function in which you could enter the chmod values and the appropriate boxes would be checked, and the developer responded with this version in less than twelve hours! Outstanding! This is a great app that "fills a necessary hole" on OS X. Thanks!  
(Version 1.1)

praisebury
0
[ Reply ]
Nov 22 2004

ANONYMOUS  The quote from Dominique PERETTI is incorrect. The correct values go like this:

Read: 4

Write: 2

Execute: 1  
(Version 1.0)

praisebury
0
[ Reply ]
Nov 22 2004

ANONYMOUS  Re: this incorrect comment " All you have to remember is the 4-3-1 rule"

It's not 4/3/1, it's 4/2/1. These values arise from the binary value series: 1,2,4,8,16,32, and bit-level math.

Therefore, the values of each permission will range numerically from 0-7. This value is generated by adding together the desired permissions, where each permission type has one of the following values:

read = r = 4

write = w = 2

execute = x = 1

e.g. rwxrw-r-- = 764

r-xr-xr-x = 555

rw-r--r-- = 644

You can read a tutorial I wrote that covers the basics of permissions via the command line here:

http://osxaudio.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=123169#123169

Best,

Logicat  
(Version 1.0)

praisebury
0
[ Reply ]
Nov 22 2004

DOMINIQUE PERETTI  All you have to remember is the 4-3-1 rule :

Read : 4

Write: 3

Execute : 1

Read+Write -> 7

Read+Execute -> 5

...

  
(Version 1.0)

praisebury
0
[ 1 Reply - Reply ]
Replies:
Nov 22 2004

TOBY PETERSON  Um, what? read = 4, write = 2, execute = 1. rw is 6, not 7.  
(Version 1.0)

praisebury
0

Nov 22 2004
*****

MACMANX  Great work so far! Any change we could get a reverse function as well? IOW, enter the chmod number first and then the necessary boxes are checked.  
(Version 1.0)

praisebury
0
[ Reply ]
Nov 21 2004

ANONYMOUS  Will, you really don't need to remember the code rule when you're using chmod command. Instead you can use 'u'ser, 'g'roup, 'o'thers and 'a'll, with plus '+'/minus '-' and 'r'ead, 'w'rite, e'x'ecutable flags to indicate each bit. For example, 'g+r' means it can be read by group; 'o-w' means it can not be written by other users. It's much easier to use, and it's based on the current status: you don't need to 'ls -la' first to acquire the current state first. You will need chmod code only when coding.  
(Version 1.0)

praisebury
0
[ Reply ]
Nov 21 2004
*****

SCHMELDING  Simple, works great, and fills a need. Solid work.

And thank you for posting a screen shot! Rock, rock on!  
(Version 1.0)

praisebury
0
[ Reply ]