Re: [linux-dell-laptops] Next distro?
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
No problem at all.
You are correct regarding similarities between "su", "su -",
sudo -i and -s.
"su -" and "sudo -i" elevate privileges to root and use the shell
environment for the root user in /etc/passwd. you will notice by
issuing a 'pwd' command, you are placed in the /root directory.
"su" and "sudo -s" elevate privileges to root and use the shell
environment of the user running the command. So, you will stay
in /home/user, and any bash aliases, etc, will remain intact.
There are many advantages in using sudo vs. su, but primarily it
comes down to the granularity of control one has in limiting what
sudoer's can do with their privileges. For instance, with sudo
you can allow a user (or group of users) to to run a small set of
commands with root privileges, without granting access to more
Have a great weekend...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--- "Douglas S. Oliver" <dsoliver@...> wrote:
> Thanks much, Gilbert. This is really useful information. Am I right in
> thinking that sudo -i and sudo -s are a little like the difference
> between having a root password and using "su <enter> and <password
> enter>" and "su - <enter> and <password enter>? The difference here
> being the added safety of using sudo and staying out of the root
> account. I've been using linux for almost 10 years but am a relative new
> comer to sudo. A few years ago I was studying for my RHSE cert. At that
> time we were warned to watch out for users using sudo when they had weak
> passwords, as you have said. That's why I stayed away from it till now
> with Ubuntu. Not because of a weak password, but because it was easy to
> use su when and only when I needed to become root. I made an rm error as
> root once on my system. Trashed everything! I just needed to do that
> once to become respectful of becoming root. Thanks again--Douglas
Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
- On Friday 25 May 2007, John DeCarlo wrote:
> Using apt is much easier and more reliable than using rpm. Trust me, IWhile there is nothing wrong (and a lot right) with apt, let's compare apples
> used rpm and Red Hat for decades. When I switched to Ubuntu last year, I
> was delightfully amazed at how much I had been missing while using rpm.
to apples here. The raw rpm command is equivalent to the raw dpkg command.
The equivalent command to apt in a Debian-inspired distribution on, say, a
Fedora Core installation, is 'yum'. You do that same sorts of things: 'yum
install kshisen' will pull in any needed RPM's from the repository, exactly
like 'apt-get install kshisen' would.
Now, with Ubuntu or plain Debian you will get a substantially larger
repository of software available; and it's not as fractured as the typical
RPM third party repositories are. But that has nothing to do with the tools
that are available.
I've been evaluating Kubuntu 7.04 in a virtual machine for a week or so, and I
like most of what I see. The biggest thing is the unified repository. The
second biggest thing is that the gnuradio and usrp packages are 'just there'
in that repository, whereas getting RPM's of same is difficult. However, I
find that adept-installer is just about as slow as pirut (GUI yum frontend on
Fedora Core 5 and above), and that's with identical hardware. Now,
adept-manager is quite a bit better.
Incidentally, there is an apt version for RPM-based systems. You can even get
synaptic on Fedora Core if you'd like.
I'm using Fedora Core 6 here on an Inspiron 640m, and most things work fine
(no headphones is an annoyance, but the sound does at least play; I haven't
worked much on the wireless, but that's a low priority for me; LCD backlight
control with Fn-UP or Fn-DOWN isn't working, etc).
Chief Information Officer
Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute
1 PARI Drive
Rosman, NC 28772