On 29/08/2015 20:10, KatolaZ wrote:
Well, I wouldn't say that su is a broken concept on its own. In
assessing the quality of ideas and software one should always take
into account the motivations which led to a certain solution.
su appeared in AT&T Unix Version 1:
Yes. However, Unix has evolved in 40 years, sometimes in a good
way, sometimes in a not so good way. And piling on more functionality
into su wasn't exactly the best idea: from a simple privilege-gaining
tool, it mutated into something between what it was and a complete
login - it lost the clarity of concept it had at first.
The fact that we have gone a bit further than that with su, asking it
to do things it was not conceived for, is our problem, not su's one.
Oh, I'm not blaming some abstract entity called "su". When I say that
su is not good (anymore), it's obviously on us.
There's a reason why I have written programs performing privilege gain
without bit s executables. ;)
--
Laurent
_______________________________________________
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
