Re: "su is really a broken concept"

2015-09-03 Thread T.J. Duchene
You're probably right, Jonathan. "Su" is so common that it easy to make that error. After looking at the current POSIX list, I did not find it. Thank you for pointing that out. Be well! T.J. On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 10:55 PM, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard < j.deboynepollard-newsgro...@ntlworld.com> wr

Re: "su is really a broken concept"

2015-09-02 Thread Jonathan de Boyne Pollard
T.J. Duchene: If someone can do it better, and still keep it compatible with POSIX, more power to them. This is not the first place where someone has randomly thrown POSIX into the discussion. "su" is outwith the scope of the POSIX standard. It's in the SVID, but to my knowledge "su" never

Re: "su is really a broken concept"

2015-08-31 Thread T.J. Duchene
On Tue, 2015-09-01 at 01:25 +0100, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote: > Lennart Poettering > (https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/825#issuecomment-127917622): > > > Long story short: su is really a broken concept. > > > > Christian Seiler: > > > > So it's not like su is suddenly broken - it

Re: "su is really a broken concept"

2015-08-31 Thread Jonathan de Boyne Pollard
Lennart Poettering (https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/825#issuecomment-127917622): Long story short: su is really a broken concept. Christian Seiler: So it's not like su is suddenly broken - it's just that some specific new use cases don't work properly with it. A fair number