14 Dec
2011
14 Dec
'11
4:33 p.m.
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 04:21:12PM -0500, Sean Conner wrote:
It was thus said that the Great Richard once stated:
To put up a conscious barrier before being handed a loaded shotgun that
helpfully already points at your foot and has the safety disabled ;-)
Also, in true multiuser environments, to limit who is allowed to destroy the
system when - not if - he fucks up. For instance, for corporate workstations
you might grant everybody in the team/group login access, but only the
official "owner" and the workstation support team gets root access via sudo.
Kind regards,
Alex.
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison
In article <539CFBE84C931A4E8516F3BBEA36C7AA4D7E8D75 at 505MBX1.corp.vnw.com>,
Rich Alderson <RichA at vulcan.com> writes:
Basically, yes. I *loathe* sudo [1], so the less I have to use it, the
better. I made the assumption that sudo bash (or any other number of
commands that have been presented) were locked, because what's the *point*
of sudo if you can just simply do "sudo bash"? [3] That's an awful lot of schratzing around to
accomplish what a simple
GUNRUP% sudo /bin/bash
will do for you. (I use this frequently on my Snow Leopard system.)
Is there some reason you don't do 'sudo -i'?