How is umask calculated in Linux?What is the first digit in umask value?Leading zero in umask 0022Why do some umask values not take effect?Umask not workingHow to check umask for all users under Linux?Umask for root and other system usersmount command permissions: ntfs vs. ntfs-3gHow umask worksWhat is the first digit in umask value?Leading zero in umask 0022How to permanently change umask value from 0002 to 0022?Setting umask for GNOME sessionWhy do some umask values not take effect?How do I make any newly created file in a specific directory executable, readable and writable by default by all users

How dangerous is XSS?

Is there a hemisphere-neutral way of specifying a season?

What are some good books on Machine Learning and AI like Krugman, Wells and Graddy's "Essentials of Economics"

One verb to replace 'be a member of' a club

How can saying a song's name be a copyright violation?

Intersection Puzzle

Should I tell management that I intend to leave due to bad software development practices?

What's the in-universe reasoning behind sorcerers needing material components?

How do I know where to place holes on an instrument?

In 'Revenger,' what does 'cove' come from?

What mechanic is there to disable a threat instead of killing it?

How to compactly explain secondary and tertiary characters without resorting to stereotypes?

Bullying boss launched a smear campaign and made me unemployable

How do I deal with an unproductive colleague in a small company?

What killed these X2 caps?

Is there an expression that means doing something right before you will need it rather than doing it in case you might need it?

How much of data wrangling is a data scientist's job?

How does a predictive coding aid in lossless compression?

CAST throwing error when run in stored procedure but not when run as raw query

How seriously should I take size and weight limits of hand luggage?

What is the most common color to indicate the input-field is disabled?

How do I handle a potential work/personal life conflict as the manager of one of my friends?

Can my sorcerer use a spellbook only to collect spells and scribe scrolls, not cast?

How to prevent "they're falling in love" trope



How is umask calculated in Linux?


What is the first digit in umask value?Leading zero in umask 0022Why do some umask values not take effect?Umask not workingHow to check umask for all users under Linux?Umask for root and other system usersmount command permissions: ntfs vs. ntfs-3gHow umask worksWhat is the first digit in umask value?Leading zero in umask 0022How to permanently change umask value from 0002 to 0022?Setting umask for GNOME sessionWhy do some umask values not take effect?How do I make any newly created file in a specific directory executable, readable and writable by default by all users













15















So I know umask can restrict privileged users, using this format umask ugo.



I understand that the read = 4, write = 2, and exec = 1. However, when I type umask, it returns 4 digits which is 0022 or 0073. I have no understanding of how does this work now because there is an extra digit. What is that extra digit and what does 0022 mean?










share|improve this question




























    15















    So I know umask can restrict privileged users, using this format umask ugo.



    I understand that the read = 4, write = 2, and exec = 1. However, when I type umask, it returns 4 digits which is 0022 or 0073. I have no understanding of how does this work now because there is an extra digit. What is that extra digit and what does 0022 mean?










    share|improve this question


























      15












      15








      15


      4






      So I know umask can restrict privileged users, using this format umask ugo.



      I understand that the read = 4, write = 2, and exec = 1. However, when I type umask, it returns 4 digits which is 0022 or 0073. I have no understanding of how does this work now because there is an extra digit. What is that extra digit and what does 0022 mean?










      share|improve this question
















      So I know umask can restrict privileged users, using this format umask ugo.



      I understand that the read = 4, write = 2, and exec = 1. However, when I type umask, it returns 4 digits which is 0022 or 0073. I have no understanding of how does this work now because there is an extra digit. What is that extra digit and what does 0022 mean?







      umask






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Dec 31 '14 at 2:55









      muru

      37k589164




      37k589164










      asked Jul 27 '13 at 22:52









      BraiamBraiam

      23.8k2077142




      23.8k2077142




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          18














          Assume the default mask of 0666. umask 0022 would make the new mask 0644 (0666-0022=0644) meaning that group and others have read (no write or execute) permissions.



          The "extra" digit (the first number = 0), specifies that there are no special modes.



          If mode begins with a digit it will be interpreted as octal otherwise its meant to be symbolic.



          0 is a digit, as is 1 (for the sticky bit) or 6 (for SGID). A command such as chmod can be called by other methods, such as chmod ug+rw mydir where you would add the read and write permissions to user and group. Note that the mode in this case (ug+rw) does not begin with a digit, thus would not be interpretted as octal but rather symbolic.



          See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chmod#Symbolic_examples for symbolics as well as www.lifeaftercoffee.com/2007/03/20/special-permission-modes-in-linux-and-unix/ for a bit on special modes.



          I don't know that you would unmask the first bit with umask, but technically you could. It would explain why you almost always see it as a zero.



          Credit to pinkfloydx33



          The first digit of the mask deals with special permissions that don't fit quite so cleanly into the owner/group/other model. When four digits are provided for a file permission, the first refers to those special values:



          4000 = SUID
          2000 = SGID
          1000 = sticky bit


          The SUID bit, short for set-user-ID, causes an executable program to run with the effective user id (uid) of the owner -- in other words, no matter who executes it, the program executes with the owner's rights. This is commonly seen in programs that do things that require root privileges, but are meant to be run by normal users: passwd is one such example.



          The SGID bit, short for set-group-ID, is very similar, but runs with the effective group id (gid) of the owner.



          The sticky bit is a little more complicated, if you want more information on that, you can read the manpage for sticky.



          These bits can also be used with directories, but their meanings change.



          I don't believe you can actually set the umask to allow you to enable any of these extra bits by default, but you probably would never want to do that anyways.



          Credit to user470379






          share|improve this answer




















          • 1





            Actually, you can't supply a non-zero value other than in the last 3 digits. According to Posix: "The interpretation of mode values that specify file mode bits other than the file permission bits is unspecified." According to man 2 umask (the corresponding system call) "only the file permission bits of mask are used". In bash, umask 1000 generates an error: "octal number out of range". So why the extra 0? I think it's just to show that the number is in octal.

            – rici
            Jul 28 '13 at 1:29











          • that pastebin has no reference whatsoever to umask, so I don't see how it's relevant. chmod does allow the first three bits to be set, but umask doesn't allow them to be masked. (i.e. you could have written chmod 6777 dropbox. And, by the way, also chmod ug+s.)

            – rici
            Jul 28 '13 at 2:17












          • Yeah, you are right, don't know what was I thinking.

            – Braiam
            Jul 28 '13 at 13:11











          • @Braiam: Your formula to calculate new mask is wrong, it's not 0666-0022, it's 0666 & ~0022.

            – cuonglm
            Dec 31 '14 at 1:44






          • 1





            I think the objection is not the way the numbers are written, but the use of the subtraction operator (-) instead of bitwise and (&).

            – BowlOfRed
            Dec 31 '14 at 3:11











          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "106"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader:
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          ,
          onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f84676%2fhow-is-umask-calculated-in-linux%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          18














          Assume the default mask of 0666. umask 0022 would make the new mask 0644 (0666-0022=0644) meaning that group and others have read (no write or execute) permissions.



          The "extra" digit (the first number = 0), specifies that there are no special modes.



          If mode begins with a digit it will be interpreted as octal otherwise its meant to be symbolic.



          0 is a digit, as is 1 (for the sticky bit) or 6 (for SGID). A command such as chmod can be called by other methods, such as chmod ug+rw mydir where you would add the read and write permissions to user and group. Note that the mode in this case (ug+rw) does not begin with a digit, thus would not be interpretted as octal but rather symbolic.



          See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chmod#Symbolic_examples for symbolics as well as www.lifeaftercoffee.com/2007/03/20/special-permission-modes-in-linux-and-unix/ for a bit on special modes.



          I don't know that you would unmask the first bit with umask, but technically you could. It would explain why you almost always see it as a zero.



          Credit to pinkfloydx33



          The first digit of the mask deals with special permissions that don't fit quite so cleanly into the owner/group/other model. When four digits are provided for a file permission, the first refers to those special values:



          4000 = SUID
          2000 = SGID
          1000 = sticky bit


          The SUID bit, short for set-user-ID, causes an executable program to run with the effective user id (uid) of the owner -- in other words, no matter who executes it, the program executes with the owner's rights. This is commonly seen in programs that do things that require root privileges, but are meant to be run by normal users: passwd is one such example.



          The SGID bit, short for set-group-ID, is very similar, but runs with the effective group id (gid) of the owner.



          The sticky bit is a little more complicated, if you want more information on that, you can read the manpage for sticky.



          These bits can also be used with directories, but their meanings change.



          I don't believe you can actually set the umask to allow you to enable any of these extra bits by default, but you probably would never want to do that anyways.



          Credit to user470379






          share|improve this answer




















          • 1





            Actually, you can't supply a non-zero value other than in the last 3 digits. According to Posix: "The interpretation of mode values that specify file mode bits other than the file permission bits is unspecified." According to man 2 umask (the corresponding system call) "only the file permission bits of mask are used". In bash, umask 1000 generates an error: "octal number out of range". So why the extra 0? I think it's just to show that the number is in octal.

            – rici
            Jul 28 '13 at 1:29











          • that pastebin has no reference whatsoever to umask, so I don't see how it's relevant. chmod does allow the first three bits to be set, but umask doesn't allow them to be masked. (i.e. you could have written chmod 6777 dropbox. And, by the way, also chmod ug+s.)

            – rici
            Jul 28 '13 at 2:17












          • Yeah, you are right, don't know what was I thinking.

            – Braiam
            Jul 28 '13 at 13:11











          • @Braiam: Your formula to calculate new mask is wrong, it's not 0666-0022, it's 0666 & ~0022.

            – cuonglm
            Dec 31 '14 at 1:44






          • 1





            I think the objection is not the way the numbers are written, but the use of the subtraction operator (-) instead of bitwise and (&).

            – BowlOfRed
            Dec 31 '14 at 3:11















          18














          Assume the default mask of 0666. umask 0022 would make the new mask 0644 (0666-0022=0644) meaning that group and others have read (no write or execute) permissions.



          The "extra" digit (the first number = 0), specifies that there are no special modes.



          If mode begins with a digit it will be interpreted as octal otherwise its meant to be symbolic.



          0 is a digit, as is 1 (for the sticky bit) or 6 (for SGID). A command such as chmod can be called by other methods, such as chmod ug+rw mydir where you would add the read and write permissions to user and group. Note that the mode in this case (ug+rw) does not begin with a digit, thus would not be interpretted as octal but rather symbolic.



          See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chmod#Symbolic_examples for symbolics as well as www.lifeaftercoffee.com/2007/03/20/special-permission-modes-in-linux-and-unix/ for a bit on special modes.



          I don't know that you would unmask the first bit with umask, but technically you could. It would explain why you almost always see it as a zero.



          Credit to pinkfloydx33



          The first digit of the mask deals with special permissions that don't fit quite so cleanly into the owner/group/other model. When four digits are provided for a file permission, the first refers to those special values:



          4000 = SUID
          2000 = SGID
          1000 = sticky bit


          The SUID bit, short for set-user-ID, causes an executable program to run with the effective user id (uid) of the owner -- in other words, no matter who executes it, the program executes with the owner's rights. This is commonly seen in programs that do things that require root privileges, but are meant to be run by normal users: passwd is one such example.



          The SGID bit, short for set-group-ID, is very similar, but runs with the effective group id (gid) of the owner.



          The sticky bit is a little more complicated, if you want more information on that, you can read the manpage for sticky.



          These bits can also be used with directories, but their meanings change.



          I don't believe you can actually set the umask to allow you to enable any of these extra bits by default, but you probably would never want to do that anyways.



          Credit to user470379






          share|improve this answer




















          • 1





            Actually, you can't supply a non-zero value other than in the last 3 digits. According to Posix: "The interpretation of mode values that specify file mode bits other than the file permission bits is unspecified." According to man 2 umask (the corresponding system call) "only the file permission bits of mask are used". In bash, umask 1000 generates an error: "octal number out of range". So why the extra 0? I think it's just to show that the number is in octal.

            – rici
            Jul 28 '13 at 1:29











          • that pastebin has no reference whatsoever to umask, so I don't see how it's relevant. chmod does allow the first three bits to be set, but umask doesn't allow them to be masked. (i.e. you could have written chmod 6777 dropbox. And, by the way, also chmod ug+s.)

            – rici
            Jul 28 '13 at 2:17












          • Yeah, you are right, don't know what was I thinking.

            – Braiam
            Jul 28 '13 at 13:11











          • @Braiam: Your formula to calculate new mask is wrong, it's not 0666-0022, it's 0666 & ~0022.

            – cuonglm
            Dec 31 '14 at 1:44






          • 1





            I think the objection is not the way the numbers are written, but the use of the subtraction operator (-) instead of bitwise and (&).

            – BowlOfRed
            Dec 31 '14 at 3:11













          18












          18








          18







          Assume the default mask of 0666. umask 0022 would make the new mask 0644 (0666-0022=0644) meaning that group and others have read (no write or execute) permissions.



          The "extra" digit (the first number = 0), specifies that there are no special modes.



          If mode begins with a digit it will be interpreted as octal otherwise its meant to be symbolic.



          0 is a digit, as is 1 (for the sticky bit) or 6 (for SGID). A command such as chmod can be called by other methods, such as chmod ug+rw mydir where you would add the read and write permissions to user and group. Note that the mode in this case (ug+rw) does not begin with a digit, thus would not be interpretted as octal but rather symbolic.



          See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chmod#Symbolic_examples for symbolics as well as www.lifeaftercoffee.com/2007/03/20/special-permission-modes-in-linux-and-unix/ for a bit on special modes.



          I don't know that you would unmask the first bit with umask, but technically you could. It would explain why you almost always see it as a zero.



          Credit to pinkfloydx33



          The first digit of the mask deals with special permissions that don't fit quite so cleanly into the owner/group/other model. When four digits are provided for a file permission, the first refers to those special values:



          4000 = SUID
          2000 = SGID
          1000 = sticky bit


          The SUID bit, short for set-user-ID, causes an executable program to run with the effective user id (uid) of the owner -- in other words, no matter who executes it, the program executes with the owner's rights. This is commonly seen in programs that do things that require root privileges, but are meant to be run by normal users: passwd is one such example.



          The SGID bit, short for set-group-ID, is very similar, but runs with the effective group id (gid) of the owner.



          The sticky bit is a little more complicated, if you want more information on that, you can read the manpage for sticky.



          These bits can also be used with directories, but their meanings change.



          I don't believe you can actually set the umask to allow you to enable any of these extra bits by default, but you probably would never want to do that anyways.



          Credit to user470379






          share|improve this answer















          Assume the default mask of 0666. umask 0022 would make the new mask 0644 (0666-0022=0644) meaning that group and others have read (no write or execute) permissions.



          The "extra" digit (the first number = 0), specifies that there are no special modes.



          If mode begins with a digit it will be interpreted as octal otherwise its meant to be symbolic.



          0 is a digit, as is 1 (for the sticky bit) or 6 (for SGID). A command such as chmod can be called by other methods, such as chmod ug+rw mydir where you would add the read and write permissions to user and group. Note that the mode in this case (ug+rw) does not begin with a digit, thus would not be interpretted as octal but rather symbolic.



          See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chmod#Symbolic_examples for symbolics as well as www.lifeaftercoffee.com/2007/03/20/special-permission-modes-in-linux-and-unix/ for a bit on special modes.



          I don't know that you would unmask the first bit with umask, but technically you could. It would explain why you almost always see it as a zero.



          Credit to pinkfloydx33



          The first digit of the mask deals with special permissions that don't fit quite so cleanly into the owner/group/other model. When four digits are provided for a file permission, the first refers to those special values:



          4000 = SUID
          2000 = SGID
          1000 = sticky bit


          The SUID bit, short for set-user-ID, causes an executable program to run with the effective user id (uid) of the owner -- in other words, no matter who executes it, the program executes with the owner's rights. This is commonly seen in programs that do things that require root privileges, but are meant to be run by normal users: passwd is one such example.



          The SGID bit, short for set-group-ID, is very similar, but runs with the effective group id (gid) of the owner.



          The sticky bit is a little more complicated, if you want more information on that, you can read the manpage for sticky.



          These bits can also be used with directories, but their meanings change.



          I don't believe you can actually set the umask to allow you to enable any of these extra bits by default, but you probably would never want to do that anyways.



          Credit to user470379







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited May 23 '17 at 12:40









          Community

          1




          1










          answered Jul 27 '13 at 22:52









          BraiamBraiam

          23.8k2077142




          23.8k2077142







          • 1





            Actually, you can't supply a non-zero value other than in the last 3 digits. According to Posix: "The interpretation of mode values that specify file mode bits other than the file permission bits is unspecified." According to man 2 umask (the corresponding system call) "only the file permission bits of mask are used". In bash, umask 1000 generates an error: "octal number out of range". So why the extra 0? I think it's just to show that the number is in octal.

            – rici
            Jul 28 '13 at 1:29











          • that pastebin has no reference whatsoever to umask, so I don't see how it's relevant. chmod does allow the first three bits to be set, but umask doesn't allow them to be masked. (i.e. you could have written chmod 6777 dropbox. And, by the way, also chmod ug+s.)

            – rici
            Jul 28 '13 at 2:17












          • Yeah, you are right, don't know what was I thinking.

            – Braiam
            Jul 28 '13 at 13:11











          • @Braiam: Your formula to calculate new mask is wrong, it's not 0666-0022, it's 0666 & ~0022.

            – cuonglm
            Dec 31 '14 at 1:44






          • 1





            I think the objection is not the way the numbers are written, but the use of the subtraction operator (-) instead of bitwise and (&).

            – BowlOfRed
            Dec 31 '14 at 3:11












          • 1





            Actually, you can't supply a non-zero value other than in the last 3 digits. According to Posix: "The interpretation of mode values that specify file mode bits other than the file permission bits is unspecified." According to man 2 umask (the corresponding system call) "only the file permission bits of mask are used". In bash, umask 1000 generates an error: "octal number out of range". So why the extra 0? I think it's just to show that the number is in octal.

            – rici
            Jul 28 '13 at 1:29











          • that pastebin has no reference whatsoever to umask, so I don't see how it's relevant. chmod does allow the first three bits to be set, but umask doesn't allow them to be masked. (i.e. you could have written chmod 6777 dropbox. And, by the way, also chmod ug+s.)

            – rici
            Jul 28 '13 at 2:17












          • Yeah, you are right, don't know what was I thinking.

            – Braiam
            Jul 28 '13 at 13:11











          • @Braiam: Your formula to calculate new mask is wrong, it's not 0666-0022, it's 0666 & ~0022.

            – cuonglm
            Dec 31 '14 at 1:44






          • 1





            I think the objection is not the way the numbers are written, but the use of the subtraction operator (-) instead of bitwise and (&).

            – BowlOfRed
            Dec 31 '14 at 3:11







          1




          1





          Actually, you can't supply a non-zero value other than in the last 3 digits. According to Posix: "The interpretation of mode values that specify file mode bits other than the file permission bits is unspecified." According to man 2 umask (the corresponding system call) "only the file permission bits of mask are used". In bash, umask 1000 generates an error: "octal number out of range". So why the extra 0? I think it's just to show that the number is in octal.

          – rici
          Jul 28 '13 at 1:29





          Actually, you can't supply a non-zero value other than in the last 3 digits. According to Posix: "The interpretation of mode values that specify file mode bits other than the file permission bits is unspecified." According to man 2 umask (the corresponding system call) "only the file permission bits of mask are used". In bash, umask 1000 generates an error: "octal number out of range". So why the extra 0? I think it's just to show that the number is in octal.

          – rici
          Jul 28 '13 at 1:29













          that pastebin has no reference whatsoever to umask, so I don't see how it's relevant. chmod does allow the first three bits to be set, but umask doesn't allow them to be masked. (i.e. you could have written chmod 6777 dropbox. And, by the way, also chmod ug+s.)

          – rici
          Jul 28 '13 at 2:17






          that pastebin has no reference whatsoever to umask, so I don't see how it's relevant. chmod does allow the first three bits to be set, but umask doesn't allow them to be masked. (i.e. you could have written chmod 6777 dropbox. And, by the way, also chmod ug+s.)

          – rici
          Jul 28 '13 at 2:17














          Yeah, you are right, don't know what was I thinking.

          – Braiam
          Jul 28 '13 at 13:11





          Yeah, you are right, don't know what was I thinking.

          – Braiam
          Jul 28 '13 at 13:11













          @Braiam: Your formula to calculate new mask is wrong, it's not 0666-0022, it's 0666 & ~0022.

          – cuonglm
          Dec 31 '14 at 1:44





          @Braiam: Your formula to calculate new mask is wrong, it's not 0666-0022, it's 0666 & ~0022.

          – cuonglm
          Dec 31 '14 at 1:44




          1




          1





          I think the objection is not the way the numbers are written, but the use of the subtraction operator (-) instead of bitwise and (&).

          – BowlOfRed
          Dec 31 '14 at 3:11





          I think the objection is not the way the numbers are written, but the use of the subtraction operator (-) instead of bitwise and (&).

          – BowlOfRed
          Dec 31 '14 at 3:11

















          draft saved

          draft discarded
















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid


          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f84676%2fhow-is-umask-calculated-in-linux%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          getting Checkpoint VPN SSL Network Extender working in the command lineHow to connect to CheckPoint VPN on Ubuntu 18.04LTS?Will the Linux ( red-hat ) Open VPNC Client connect to checkpoint or nortel VPN gateways?VPN client for linux machine + support checkpoint gatewayVPN SSL Network Extender in FirefoxLinux Checkpoint SNX tool configuration issuesCheck Point - Connect under Linux - snx + OTPSNX VPN Ububuntu 18.XXUsing Checkpoint VPN SSL Network Extender CLI with certificateVPN with network manager (nm-applet) is not workingWill the Linux ( red-hat ) Open VPNC Client connect to checkpoint or nortel VPN gateways?VPN client for linux machine + support checkpoint gatewayImport VPN config files to NetworkManager from command lineTrouble connecting to VPN using network-manager, while command line worksStart a VPN connection with PPTP protocol on command linestarting a docker service daemon breaks the vpn networkCan't connect to vpn with Network-managerVPN SSL Network Extender in FirefoxUsing Checkpoint VPN SSL Network Extender CLI with certificate

          Cannot Extend partition with GParted The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) 2019 Community Moderator Election ResultsCan't increase partition size with GParted?GParted doesn't recognize the unallocated space after my current partitionWhat is the best way to add unallocated space located before to Ubuntu 12.04 partition with GParted live?I can't figure out how to extend my Arch home partition into free spaceGparted Linux Mint 18.1 issueTrying to extend but swap partition is showing as Unknown in Gparted, shows proper from fdiskRearrange partitions in gparted to extend a partitionUnable to extend partition even though unallocated space is next to it using GPartedAllocate free space to root partitiongparted: how to merge unallocated space with a partition

          Marilyn Monroe Ny fiainany manokana | Jereo koa | Meny fitetezanafanitarana azy.