| 1 |
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:18 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 05:30:40PM -0700, Kevin O'Gorman wrote: |
| 4 |
> > On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Bill Longman <bill.longman@×××××.com> |
| 5 |
> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > I actually prefer "sudo su -" -- as long as I'm giving it away! :o) |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Afaik, there is no reason for "sudo su -" It should be either |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> su - |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> or, if you are using sudo, |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> sudo -i |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> The disadvantage of "su -" is that it requires the user to know the root |
| 17 |
> password. But, "sudo -i" does the same thing without requiring the user |
| 18 |
> to know the root password. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> You either didn't think or didn't actually try it. "sudo su -" needs a |
| 21 |
password, but it's the |
| 22 |
user password. Running su as root never needs a password. Accordingly, |
| 23 |
this works on |
| 24 |
a stock Ubuntu with no root password. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
"su -" requires the root password unless you're already root, and the root |
| 27 |
password may or may not exist. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I didn't know about "sudo -i" (thanks), but when I tried "sudo -i" it |
| 30 |
immediately asked for a password, for which |
| 31 |
the user password was sufficient. So it's entirely equivalent to but |
| 32 |
slightly shorter than my version. I'll stick with |
| 33 |
mine because it's made of parts I already know and won't forget. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
I think that if sudoers don't need to enter passwords, they're still |
| 36 |
equivalent, but I have not tried this. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Kevin O'Gorman, PhD |
Archives