So far, the only difference I see between "su
-" and "sudo -s" is
what password I type.
I _think_ "su -" uses root's shell and "sudo -s" uses your shell.
Those using sudo because "it's more
secure" are deluding themselves,
in my opinion.
Actually, there are threats it's more secure against than simple su.
(Not to say that all, or even most, of those espousing the "It's More
Secure" theory have bothered with threat modeling, or even know the
concept; Sturgeon's Law applies.)
I can't think of many commands that 1) won't
give you root access via
some method, or 2) are very useful by themselves as a one-off in
root.
(1) doesn't matter unless you are dealing with malicious attackers.
While I don't have enough information to say anything about how common
they are among sudo users, there _are_ plenty of potential sudo uses
that do not have to worry about them.
As for (2), there are lots of commands that are useful as one-offs when
run as root. At least a few of them have fairly low "pervert to obtain
root access" potential; for example, the desire that led me to muck
about with sudo most recently was the desire to give someone tcpdump
access on a particular interface of a particular machine - not
particularly dangerous, especially since it's also a case of a user
who's trusted to be non-malicious, just not trusted with the mistake
potential a full root shell carries.
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at
rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B