1 |
On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 05:30:40PM -0700, Kevin O'Gorman wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Bill Longman <bill.longman@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
> > On 08/09/2010 01:08 PM, Robert Bridge wrote: |
5 |
> > > On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Mick <michaelkintzios@×××××.com> wrote: |
6 |
> > >> There have been discussions on this list why sudo is a bad idea and sudo |
7 |
> > on |
8 |
> > >> *any* command is an even worse idea. You might as well be running |
9 |
> > everything |
10 |
> > >> as root, right? |
11 |
> > > |
12 |
> > > sudo normally logs the command executed, and the account which |
13 |
> > > executes it, so while not relevant for single user systems, it STILL |
14 |
> > > has benefits over running as root. |
15 |
> > |
16 |
> > ...excepting, of course, "sudo bash -l" which means you've given away |
17 |
> > the keys to the kingdom. |
18 |
> > |
19 |
> > I actually prefer "sudo su -" -- as long as I'm giving it away! :o) |
20 |
|
21 |
Afaik, there is no reason for "sudo su -" It should be either |
22 |
|
23 |
su - |
24 |
|
25 |
or, if you are using sudo, |
26 |
|
27 |
sudo -i |
28 |
|
29 |
The disadvantage of "su -" is that it requires the user to know the root |
30 |
password. But, "sudo -i" does the same thing without requiring the user |
31 |
to know the root password. |
32 |
|
33 |
William |