On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 12:23:38 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 02:15:03PM +0300, J wrote: > > And i thought *sudo -i*, you speaking about, is something like > > *--interactive*, which is not, how i see now... > > The long form is "--login", not interactive. But the "-i" stands > in for the interactive shell it gives you. Go figure :-)
"sudo -s" gives you a root shell, of the non-login variety. In the case of bash, this means it reads ~root/.bashrc but not /etc/profile and so on. "sudo -i" gives you a root shell, of the login variety. In the case of bash, this means it reads /etc/profile and ~root/.profile (or possibly ~root/.bash_profile or ~root/.bash_login). I normally use "sudo -s", which is the closest sudo approximation to the traditional behvior of "su" (before it was broken in buster). "sudo -i" is meant to approximate the behavior of "su -". Before buster, nobody would have used that on a Debian system. It's horrible. The fact that people are now embracing it as a norm is even worse.
