On Thursday 29 July 2010 11:31:05 Jordan Metzmeier wrote: > On 07/29/2010 12:22 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > > I understand your issues with all but the last one. A user may need > > to "sudo su" due to configuration outside of their control. A system > > that requires you to "sudo su" for some task is likely misconfigured, > > but it is a useful tool to have around, as a user. > > > > The rest are less useful, and generally imply a limited, incomplete, > > or flawed understanding of one or more of the tools you are using. > > I no longer configure my machines in a way that it allows a user to gain > full root via sudo. However, when I did, I found "sudo -i" to be more > appropriate than "sudo su" which seems to be more like "su -l". Of > course, you could always do "sudo su -l".
See my reply to Eduardo. In short, having (sudo su) available does not mean that (sudo -i) will work. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
