<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title>Comments on snippet: 'Chmod files recursively to 644'</title>
<link>http://snipplr.com</link>
<description>Snipplr comments feed'</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 16:50:54 GMT</pubDate>
<item>
<title>jfine said on 5/24/12</title>
<link>http://snipplr.com/view/42216/chmod-files-recursively-to-644/</link>
<description><![CDATA[ xargs is also much faster.

Here are a couple other interesting links for those who care to dig deeper.  
[Linux: xargs vs. exec {}](http://danielmiessler.com/blog/linux-xargs-vs-exec)  
[find -exec cmd {} + vs | xargs](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/896808/find-exec-cmd-vs-xargs) ]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 06:54:31 GMT</pubDate>
<guid>http://snipplr.com/view/42216/chmod-files-recursively-to-644/</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title>jfine said on 5/24/12</title>
<link>http://snipplr.com/view/42216/chmod-files-recursively-to-644/</link>
<description><![CDATA[ That would work unless there are some really wacky filenames. That's the main reason I'm using the -print0 pattern.

See this URL for more info:
http://www.gnu.org/software/findutils/manual/html_node/find_html/Problems-with-_002dexec-and-filenames.html ]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 06:48:05 GMT</pubDate>
<guid>http://snipplr.com/view/42216/chmod-files-recursively-to-644/</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title>laforge said on 10/14/10</title>
<link>http://snipplr.com/view/42216/chmod-files-recursively-to-644/</link>
<description><![CDATA[ You can try directly this:

find . -type f -exec chmod 644 '{}' \; ]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 Oct 2010 03:44:16 GMT</pubDate>
<guid>http://snipplr.com/view/42216/chmod-files-recursively-to-644/</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>