[OT] sudo, why not su?

David Woyciesjes woyciesjes at sbcglobal.net
Tue Aug 9 13:40:38 UTC 2005


MrKnisely wrote:

> Magnus Therning wrote:
> 
>> This will be my very last post on this topic. I've already found the
>> answer I was looking for[1] and I have no real interest in continuing
>> the discussion for the discussion's sake.
>>
>> However, if you had read through the whole thread (I'll be the first to
>> admit it hasn't been the easiest one to follow) you would have seen that
>> _in the scenario considered_ the only difference between 'sudo' and 'su'
>> (if there was a solution using 'su') would have been what password was
>> used.
>>
>> You are correct in saying that in the general case that isn't the only
>> difference. That is because 'sudo' solves a more general problem than
>> 'su' does.
>>
>> /M
>>
>> 1. http://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/2005-August/045243.html
>>
>>  
>>
> Wow, this says it all.  It's a bad perception that "the only difference 
> between 'sudo' and 'su' (if there was a solution using 'su') would have 
> been what password was used."
> 
> That is just plain wrong, and that is where the misunderstanding lies.
> 
> At any rate, great thread.  It's not often we deal with ideas and not 
> problems.
> 
> Mike K.

	One important thing that I'm sure we all know, but nobody brought up, 
is that when normally used, 'sudo' gives the user root privs for only 
that command. After that, the user has normal privs as soon as that 
command finishes.
	Whereas 'su' gives you root (or whatever user you switch to) privs 
until you tell it to exit, assuming you remember to do that.
	For example, how bad would it be if a user opened a terminal, typed 
'su', ran a few quick tasks, then just walked away without typing 'exit'?

-- 
--- Dave Woyciesjes
--- ICQ# 905818





More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list