Re: About the 'su' command

On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >> Am I missing something? > > In my not-so-humble opinion, "script portibility" means copy script to box, > "maybe" chmod it to make it executable - and GO!! I'm guessing that "su" > will be part of the future default capability of cygwin. So do we

Re: About the 'su' command

Dessent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@cygwin.com on 07/01/2003 08:09:57 AM Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: (bcc: Brian Kelly/WTC1/Empire) Subject:Re: About the 'su' command [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >> Why rewrite 'su' to d

Re: About the 'su' command

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >> Why rewrite 'su' to do those types of tricks, when 'ssh' already exists? > > Uhhh - how about "script portability??" > > (Which is why I predict su will "someday" be made to do this. When?? > Simple, > When somebody does it ) [ I ain't demand'in nothin from

Re: About the 'su' command

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Karsten M. Self wrote: > on Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 08:51:24AM -0400, Bill C. Riemers wrote: > > Now you ask, "Well then, why can ssh do pipes." Very simple, 'ssh' sticks > > around after starting the child process starts passing data from open file > > descriptors though sock

Re: About the 'su' command

| |^ | \ \// \___/ "Igor Pechtchanski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 06/30/2003 08:45:48 AM Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: About the 'su' command Brian, Th

Re: About the 'su' command

meday" be made to do this. When?? > > Simple, > > When somebody does it ) [ I ain't demand'in nothin from nobody ] > > > > Brian Kelly > > > > > > "Karsten M. Self" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@cygwin.com on 06/29/2003 07:34:57 PM > >

Re: About the 'su' command

OTECTED]>@cygwin.com on 06/29/2003 07:34:57 PM > Sent by:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > cc: (bcc: Brian Kelly/WTC1/Empire) > Subject:Re: About the 'su' command > > Is this, or could this be made, part of the standard Cygwin docs and/or > FAQ? &

Re: About the 'su' command

It is. See . Igor On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Karsten M. Self wrote: > Is this, or could this be made, part of the standard Cygwin docs and/or > FAQ? > > Very nice explanation, Bill. > > Peace. > > on Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 08:51:24AM -0400

Re: About the 'su' command

7;in nothin from nobody ] Brian Kelly "Karsten M. Self" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@cygwin.com on 06/29/2003 07:34:57 PM Sent by:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: (bcc: Brian Kelly/WTC1/Empire) Subject:Re: About the 'su' command Is th

Re: About the 'su' command

Is this, or could this be made, part of the standard Cygwin docs and/or FAQ? Very nice explanation, Bill. Peace. on Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 08:51:24AM -0400, Bill C. Riemers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > The second says the command wont work unless I have appropriate > > privileges. > > Do yo

Re: About the 'su' command

Ross Presser wrote: Larry Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Do you know "someone" on an XP station that has more powers than the Administrator or an Administrators member ? Certainly. SYSTEM. But I'd highly recommend using ssh instead of su. That way you don't have t

Re: About the 'su' command

Larry Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: >> Do you know "someone" on an XP station that has more powers than the >> Administrator or an Administrators member ? > > > Certainly. SYSTEM. But I'd highly recommend using ssh instead of > su. That way you don't have to create

Re: About the 'su' command

> The second says the command wont work unless I have appropriate > privileges. > Do you know "someone" on an XP station that has more powers than the > Administrator or an Administrators member ? On most Unix systems, if you create a user with UID 65535 you will find that user is unable to run '

Re: About the 'su' command

Sylvain Petreolle wrote: Do you mean here that the only user who can do 'su' at the moment is SYSTEM ?? Certainly. SYSTEM. But I'd highly recommend using ssh instead of su. That way you don't have to create a user with privileges that opens a security hole just so you can su. Of course, you ca

Re: About the 'su' command

Do you mean here that the only user who can do 'su' at the moment is SYSTEM ?? > > Certainly. SYSTEM. But I'd highly recommend using ssh instead of > su. That way you don't have to create a user with privileges that > opens a security hole just so you can su. Of course, you can do > so if you

Re: About the 'su' command

Sylvain Petreolle wrote: Really? Here's two useful and informative messages I found on the first page of hits from google: (I used the mailing list serach engine :) but of course google pOwEr ) First mistake. ;-) Reading the first one and its thread doesnt give a valuable reason to keep the

Re: About the 'su' command

> Really? Here's two useful and informative messages I found on the > first > page of hits from google: (I used the mailing list serach engine :) but of course google pOwEr ) > > Reading the first one and its thread doesnt give a valuable reason to keep the FAQ out of sync. > > > Does this n

Re: About the 'su' command

Sylvain Petreolle wrote: Hi all developers, I want to make some report bout the 'su' command. - The FAQ entry about it seems deprecated (or at least not completely true) This command is shown as removed from the distribution, but according to http://www.cygwin.com/packages, it is included in sh-ut

About the 'su' command

Hi all developers, I want to make some report bout the 'su' command. - The FAQ entry about it seems deprecated (or at least not completely true) This command is shown as removed from the distribution, but according to http://www.cygwin.com/packages, it is included in sh-utils-2.0.15-3 (current ver