[SOLVED] Question regarding CHMOD terminal command...

[SkittleLinux18]

In the past, I have typed in a terminal:

chmod 777 filepath

and it changed the permissions of all the files and subdirectories. However, I have also learned that the only way to change the permissions of all the subdirectories is to type in a terminal:

chmod --r 777 filepath

I guess my question is, what's the difference if they both do the same thing?

[GNU-Fan]

It shouldn't do that.
chmod should not recurse unless called with -R (uppercase!).

If it does, I assume your distributor made a macro called by that name which is mapped to chmod with the recursive option.

Try to call explicitly /bin/chmod and see if it is any different.

[Freston]

In the past, I have typed in a terminal:

chmod 777 filepath

and it changed the permissions of all the files and subdirectories.

I certainly hope not

Calling `chmod 777 /path/to/file` should only change permissions on 'file' in '/path/to/' and not anything else. You can make it recursive with the -R option, yes, if that is your intent. But it shouldn't be default. That might just make your entire collection of nature pictures world readable.

[SkittleLinux18]

It shouldn't do that.
chmod should not recurse unless called with -R (uppercase!).

If it does, I assume your distributor made a macro called by that name which is mapped to chmod with the recursive option.

Try to call explicitly /bin/chmod and see if it is any different.

I pulled up the help menu for chmod in the terminal, and --R was definitely listed as an option in there. I must have typed --R in the past and, for some freakish reason, just can't remember. Thanks, guys.