Some people think before they type. They also do not think mindlessly typing "sudo" before every fucking line in bash is a valid substitute for knowing what they do. Many of them have been doing so for decades on HPUX, Solaris, BSDs and IRIX on their own and other people's/companies machines, not just on their single bedroom machine.
It's easier to just call su once and run every single command as root rather than having to randomly use sudo for some commands and not for others (/s if it's not obvious)
In a lot of situations it's actually bad to use sudo because it can impact settings that make programs or file ownership go to root instead of the user.
You've got to be a damn idiot jumping over his own shadow to get that done. How would you even do that? Running
chown -R root.root
over directories or mount points? Deleting files in /dev or /run and recreating them using "touch" without looking up ownerships before? I wrote "touch" because anyone proceeding to "mknod" would at least have read some man pages. BTW, you'd need su for that rather than sudo.
Ah, I see your problem, you need to add --no-preserve-root.
See the French are super into wine - and grape vines are notoriously hard to get rid of, so if you want to really get rid of the French language pack, you need to rip that grapevine out by the root (e.g. don't preserve the root). Otherwise, the French language pack will just grow back harder and Frenchier than before.
I moved my father on Bluefin 1.5 years ago from his antique MacBook Air. He doesn't know sudo exists. He has never heard of ujust. He doesn't even command line. He hasn't had to do a single update because it all happens in the background. He just.. uses it.
doesn't even have to be atomic, I rescued my wife's shit laptop using Ubuntu Mate (snaps booing in background) and she has never seen the command line unless I open it. It's been like that for over a year at least.
I once did a HackTheBox where the privilege escalation weakness was a cronjob running a script. I'm not sure if I correctly remember all the details, but I think it read some parameters from a file and fed them to some other script. Since it had something to do with the webserver the user was administrating, they needed write access to the file, granted via ACL. That took me a while to spot, actually. Not sure why, but ACL is a constant blind spot for me. As for passing the parameters, you can just append the contents of the file to the command and pipe it to bash.
I don't recall what the normal script did, but it needed writing permissions for something. The proper way to do this would be ACL, but I guess I'm not the only one with a blind spot. The easy way to ensure the script can do whatever it needs to is to sudo the whole thing.
So what do you do if you have a script running every ten minutes, reading the first line of a file you can edit, then executing it with superuser privileges?
sudo -i starts a login shell as the specified user. Login shell means it'll read that user's bashrc/zshrc/whatever other login files and apply those. If no user is specified, then it'll login as root, so you get a root shell
OMG. There's literally more ignorance and bullshit than words in that sentence. It is so wrong that not even the opposite is true. I hope that was sarcasm - in which case I draw my hat because it would be a true peace of art.
Before voting me down, be sure to
man environ
and be sure you've understood at least what the environment variables do. If that is too hard for you, at least find out what the difference between a binary and a UID might be.
No arguments, just downvotes... I almost suspect some participants do not even understand what might be wrong with "you are sudo"? I also bet you don't have the right idea what the difference between effective UIDs might be depending if you're using "su", "su -i" , "su - " sudo or "sudo su". The differences are not exactly subtile and I dare to say admins on unixoids who don't know them are basically talking heads without an idea what they're actually talking about.
I have no idea how any of this is different. Sudo does things as root. Sudo -i logs you in as root where you can do things. So if there is a difference it is v subtle.
!! basically pastes the last ... action you took as an interaction with the shell. it's the same as pressing the up arrow, and putting whatever you want in the same position relative to the !!
Your terminal at boot. That would be TECTONIX or VT100 when your good old VAX has made a boo-boo once more? But I wouldn't know where to fill any Chinese contact spray ("sudo su", "Fu Manchu"...) in there. Or do you by any means mean your .bashrc? You know, before sucessfully shooting your own foot you'd need how to load and unlock.
Unpopular opinion:
On 99% of all Linux systems, you don't need sudo.
It's not like you have hundreds of users with varying levels of access logging into your PC.
Just use root for admin tasks.
Su often takes more time and is more involved, even if it's a difference between very little effort and no effort at all.
For example, I update and install apps through CLI about once a week, and I'd rather just bang the sudo than go su, enter root credentials, and only then go for what I wanted in the first place.
su [Enter] [Password] [Command] doesn't take longer than sudo [Command] [Enter] [Password]
And after you've done it once, you can just keep the terminal open and do all other admin tasks without typing sudo
Open another terminal (or tab) for user stuff.
This wouldn't do anything. Sudo is white magick while su is the devil's work, so they cancel out each other. I know, because I've read Harry Potter, seen "War Games" and am a social net Linux expert.
Yeah I only use sudo once, for the su.
… but why? “sudo -i” is a thing. Why get another program involved?
Some people just want to watch the world burn.
Some people think before they type. They also do not think mindlessly typing "sudo" before every fucking line in bash is a valid substitute for knowing what they do. Many of them have been doing so for decades on HPUX, Solaris, BSDs and IRIX on their own and other people's/companies machines, not just on their single bedroom machine.
I don't think many people know about this feature
Personally it's because my fingers are already on "s" and "u".
It's easier to just call su once and run every single command as root rather than having to randomly use sudo for some commands and not for others (/s if it's not obvious)
But you can do that without involving ‘su’.
I don't use sudo.
Ever.
It's disabled by default in slackware, and I don't know why it's even there.
Tell me how you can run rm rf / no preserve root without su, I'm waiting.
Is this some kind of joke going over my head or something?
Run “sudo -i” then run “rm -rf --no-preserve-root”
Yeah I'm just joking around. I pretty much never use su except in rare cases
Straight to jail.
I just delete every user but root.
I've seen that piece, mostly in beginner instructions, for a root shell. But does it even make sense? Why run a elevated su? Just run su.
I think some distros don't expose or create a root password and make you do sudo su. I might be wrong.
Shut the front door!
In a lot of situations it's actually bad to use sudo because it can impact settings that make programs or file ownership go to root instead of the user.
makepkg won't even run as root iirc
sudo -i -u user -s /usr/bin/bashYou've got to be a damn idiot jumping over his own shadow to get that done. How would you even do that? Running
over directories or mount points? Deleting files in /dev or /run and recreating them using "touch" without looking up ownerships before? I wrote "touch" because anyone proceeding to "mknod" would at least have read some man pages. BTW, you'd need su for that rather than sudo.
fakesudo exists for a reason
But rm -fr / * seems not to work for removing the French language pack. Can someone confirm if it works with sudo?
Works fine with sudo, removes all the French bloat.
I see French bloated my system to the fullest!
Glad you fixed it. Don't forget to reboot.
Ah, I see your problem, you need to add
--no-preserve-root.See the French are super into wine - and grape vines are notoriously hard to get rid of, so if you want to really get rid of the French language pack, you need to rip that grapevine out by the root (e.g. don't preserve the root). Otherwise, the French language pack will just grow back harder and Frenchier than before.
Sacrebleu!
Mondieu!
How could I have forgotten that?
How else will the OS know I'm serious ?
"Yes, Do as I say!"
Oh, you mean better use doas everywhere? Got it.
sudon't tell me what to do
su:
Don’t need sudo if you’re always root.
Now excuse me. I need to call the bank and find out why my checking account is suddenly $0.
And yet half the time when I'm root I preface with sudo. I can't stop myself!
sudo man sudo
IMO the "year of the Linux desktop" will come when distros are designed for people who shouldn't even be allowed to use sudo.
Let me introduce you to atomic distros.
I moved my father on Bluefin 1.5 years ago from his antique MacBook Air. He doesn't know
sudoexists. He has never heard ofujust. He doesn't even command line. He hasn't had to do a single update because it all happens in the background. He just.. uses it.doesn't even have to be atomic, I rescued my wife's shit laptop using Ubuntu Mate (snaps booing in background) and she has never seen the command line unless I open it. It's been like that for over a year at least.
Yes, but contrary to atomic distros, it's not explicitely designed to be as administration free as possible.
I once did a HackTheBox where the privilege escalation weakness was a cronjob running a script. I'm not sure if I correctly remember all the details, but I think it read some parameters from a file and fed them to some other script. Since it had something to do with the webserver the user was administrating, they needed write access to the file, granted via ACL. That took me a while to spot, actually. Not sure why, but ACL is a constant blind spot for me. As for passing the parameters, you can just append the contents of the file to the command and pipe it to bash.
I don't recall what the normal script did, but it needed writing permissions for something. The proper way to do this would be ACL, but I guess I'm not the only one with a blind spot. The easy way to ensure the script can do whatever it needs to is to
sudothe whole thing.So what do you do if you have a script running every ten minutes, reading the first line of a file you can edit, then executing it with superuser privileges?
Whatever the fuck you want.
You mean we shouldn't have a 'while true; eval $file' job running as root??? Goddammit, someone help me fix my remote admin script!!!
Huh. I might need to take a peek at one of my cronjobs now. 😂
I mean, yeah, it's your computer. Just login on the root account, nothing bad ever comes of that, not even once, nope.
It's a lesson many of us learn the hard way.
sudo bash
sudo -i
ooo what's that one do?
Starts an interactive session as root (or another user when combined with -u)
It provides a login shell - like
So you get the full environment from that user
…Yes, I know.
Not everything is all about you, dude.
sudo -istarts a login shell as the specified user. Login shell means it'll read that user's bashrc/zshrc/whatever other login files and apply those. If no user is specified, then it'll login as root, so you get a root shellGives you a shell where you basically are sudo for every command.
OMG. There's literally more ignorance and bullshit than words in that sentence. It is so wrong that not even the opposite is true. I hope that was sarcasm - in which case I draw my hat because it would be a true peace of art.
Before voting me down, be sure to
No arguments, just downvotes... I almost suspect some participants do not even understand what might be wrong with "you are sudo"? I also bet you don't have the right idea what the difference between effective UIDs might be depending if you're using "su", "su -i" , "su - " sudo or "sudo su". The differences are not exactly subtile and I dare to say admins on unixoids who don't know them are basically talking heads without an idea what they're actually talking about.
I have no idea how any of this is different. Sudo does things as root. Sudo -i logs you in as root where you can do things. So if there is a difference it is v subtle.
Sudo !!
👌👌👌 perfection
I came here to look for this.
So for all that time one could do THIS?
Pfft. Real men always log in as root.
You got that right. https://www.garyshood.com/root/
root@box ~# sudo fdisk -lAll you need is a single sudo su, correct.
People wouldn't just go on the Internet and lie... would they?
This is the way.
Look at OP, claiming to have that mythical girlfriend who will make a sandwich without escalating privileges
Sudo -iIt's a nice precautionary measure
It is indeed.
For those unaware:
sudo !!if your previous command failed because you forgotsudo.Let's say I run something like
rm a.txt && rm b.txt, willsudo !!work for both commands or just the first?!! basically pastes the last ... action you took as an interaction with the shell. it's the same as pressing the up arrow, and putting whatever you want in the same position relative to the !!
https://youtu.be/PRm6tYo8nGY?t=64
Relevant bash manpage section here.
I wasn't sure, so I tested this. Turns out, only
a.txtwould be deleted and removal ofb.txtfails due to lack of permissions.!!is pure textual substitution, so it'd besudo rm a.txt && rm b.txt. You could do something likesudo sh -c "!!"though.Both
TIL thank you!
sudo claude just fuck my shit upY'er a root, Harry!!
sudo dnf --help
Just once.
sudo -s
If you’re using sudo for Rm -r / You’re doing it wrong
Blasphemy!!!
sudo wineBut how will I run that command I copied from some murky internet forum?
Right. Just put sudo su in your terminal on boot, and you're set.
Your terminal at boot. That would be TECTONIX or VT100 when your good old VAX has made a boo-boo once more? But I wouldn't know where to fill any Chinese contact spray ("sudo su", "Fu Manchu"...) in there. Or do you by any means mean your .bashrc? You know, before sucessfully shooting your own foot you'd need how to load and unlock.
Unpopular opinion:
On 99% of all Linux systems, you don't need sudo.
It's not like you have hundreds of users with varying levels of access logging into your PC.
Just use root for admin tasks.
Su often takes more time and is more involved, even if it's a difference between very little effort and no effort at all.
For example, I update and install apps through CLI about once a week, and I'd rather just bang the sudo than go su, enter root credentials, and only then go for what I wanted in the first place.
su [Enter] [Password] [Command]doesn't take longer thansudo [Command] [Enter] [Password]And after you've done it once, you can just keep the terminal open and do all other admin tasks without typing
sudoOpen another terminal (or tab) for user stuff.
You're right, just add
Sudo -sto/etc/profileWhat if I told you I sudo as root
This wouldn't do anything. Sudo is white magick while su is the devil's work, so they cancel out each other. I know, because I've read Harry Potter, seen "War Games" and am a social net Linux expert.
Tell this to my cousin (though he probably does this to gaslight me).
Sudo -ku
doas
I normally disable root, so I don’t think su would work. Never tried, so maybe I am using it wrong.