On Thursday 29 July 2010 11:56:45 Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote: > On Qui, 29 Jul 2010, "Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." wrote: > > See my reply to Eduardo. In short, having (sudo su) available does not > > mean that (sudo -i) will work. > > Well, if you wanna give a full root shell to someone, then do it in > the correct way (allowing sudo -i to work), instead of allowing "su" > via sudo.
I don't always have full control over /etc/sudoers, even if I have "root" access. Therefore (sudo su) is a useful tool to have when (sudo -i) should, but does not, work. Like I said, (sudo su) is something to remember for when you are on a *mis- configured* system. (How many times do I have to say mis-configured before people stop assuming *I* configure my systems that way!?) -- 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.
