On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 10:23:20AM -0400, Bee.Lists wrote:
>
> Second, if you READ the posts, you would find that the man page, is
> unclear. It was referred to, but you missed that as well.
No, it's really not. This is reinforced by the fact that you are the sole
person having an issue
> On May 14, 2019, at 10:23 AM, Valeri Galtsev
> wrote:
>
> Look, in the following four command lines executed in the shell:
>
> su
>
> su fred
>
> su - fred
>
> su -l fred
>
> - in all four of them:
>
> "su" is a command
>
> "fred" is an argument (wherever it is present)
>
> "-"
On 2019-05-14 09:07, Bee.Lists wrote:
On May 14, 2019, at 8:14 AM, Jonathan Billings wrote:
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 07:45:55AM -0400, Bee.Lists wrote:
I addressed this in the thread.
And we continue to tell you that you're wrong. su behaves the same
way when switching to any other user
> On May 14, 2019, at 10:13 AM, Valeri Galtsev
> wrote:
>
> Sorry, Jonathan, that I replying _your_ message, my reply has nothing to do
> with it of any of your other posts, but rather with some posts by some other
> posters. I really have to say this:
>
> This whole thread - some posts in
On 2019-05-14 07:14, Jonathan Billings wrote:
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 07:45:55AM -0400, Bee.Lists wrote:
I addressed this in the thread.
And we continue to tell you that you're wrong. su behaves the same
way when switching to any other user as it does for root. Stop
spreading
> On May 14, 2019, at 8:14 AM, Jonathan Billings wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 07:45:55AM -0400, Bee.Lists wrote:
>> I addressed this in the thread.
>
> And we continue to tell you that you're wrong. su behaves the same
> way when switching to any other user as it does for root. Stop
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 07:45:55AM -0400, Bee.Lists wrote:
> I addressed this in the thread.
And we continue to tell you that you're wrong. su behaves the same
way when switching to any other user as it does for root. Stop
spreading misinformation.
--
Jonathan Billings
> On May 14, 2019, at 6:06 AM, Pete Biggs wrote:
>
>> OK I think you need to read previous posts on this.
>>
>> I’m not looking for any other command.
>
> How are 'su' and 'su -' different commands?
>
> If you really dislike typing the extra " '-'", then setup an
> alias so you only have
> On May 14, 2019, at 6:02 AM, Pete Biggs wrote:
>
> su is NOT the same as logging in with that user ID. If you login as
> root at the console, root's .bash_profile would be read.
I can count those instances on one hand over the last 40 years. Hence the
question of switching from another
> On May 14, 2019, at 5:50 AM, John R. Dennison wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 05:19:57AM -0400, Bee.Lists wrote:
>> OK I think you need to read previous posts on this.
>>
>> I’m not looking for any other command.
>
> Please stop top-posting, thank you.
>
> It's the _same command_;
On Tue, 2019-05-14 at 05:19 -0400, Bee.Lists wrote:
> OK I think you need to read previous posts on this.
>
> I’m not looking for any other command.
How are 'su' and 'su -' different commands?
If you really dislike typing the extra " '-'", then setup an
alias so you only have to type "'s'
On Tue, 2019-05-14 at 04:50 -0400, Bee.Lists wrote:
> su does not load .bash_profile and therefore is a completely
> different application than with any other user. This one is
> different, considering .bash_profile is indeed used for logins for
> other users.
su is an application for
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 05:19:57AM -0400, Bee.Lists wrote:
> OK I think you need to read previous posts on this.
>
> I’m not looking for any other command.
Please stop top-posting, thank you.
It's the _same command_; all it is is a different invocation method
using an additional argument.
OK I think you need to read previous posts on this.
I’m not looking for any other command.
> On May 14, 2019, at 5:10 AM, John Hodrien wrote:
>
> You misunderstand. su behaves the same when switching to root as to any
> other account.
>
> su -
>
> is probably the command you're looking
On Tue, 14 May 2019, Bee.Lists wrote:
su does not load .bash_profile and therefore is a completely different
application than with any other user. This one is different, considering
.bash_profile is indeed used for logins for other users.
You misunderstand. su behaves the same when
su does not load .bash_profile and therefore is a completely different
application than with any other user. This one is different, considering
.bash_profile is indeed used for logins for other users.
> On May 13, 2019, at 5:25 PM, Pete Biggs wrote:
>
>>
>> man su doesn’t apply to root
But it is different. Significantly different.
I’d rather just use ‘su’ and have the login sequence trip the loading of my
aliases. Moving this to .bashrc has solved that. That’s what I was asking.
> On May 13, 2019, at 4:37 PM, Jonathan Billings wrote:
>
> The 'su' man page explains
> Shame that "security experts" regularly recommend using another name for
> the root account - security through obscurity anyone?
>
Unfortunately anyone can call themselves an "expert".
If your protection against a UID 0 login is to change the username,
then you need to seriously look at (a)
On 2019-05-13 16:55, J Martin Rushton via CentOS wrote:
On 13/05/2019 22:25, Pete Biggs wrote:
On Mon, 2019-05-13 at 16:20 -0400, Bee.Lists wrote:
It may not be "just another user", but it *is* a user as much as your
login username is a user. You could assign your own username a UID of
On 13/05/2019 22:25, Pete Biggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-05-13 at 16:20 -0400, Bee.Lists wrote:
>
> It may not be "just another user", but it *is* a user as much as your
> login username is a user. You could assign your own username a UID of
> 0, and it would have the same privileges as 'root', but
On 2019-05-13 16:25, Pete Biggs wrote:
On Mon, 2019-05-13 at 16:20 -0400, Bee.Lists wrote:
On May 13, 2019, at 2:46 PM, Pete Biggs wrote:
First, the ~ which might not apply to root.
Why do you think that? '~' is just shell shorthand for user's home
directory.
root quite often isn’t
On Mon, 2019-05-13 at 16:20 -0400, Bee.Lists wrote:
> > On May 13, 2019, at 2:46 PM, Pete Biggs wrote:
> >
> > > First, the ~ which might not apply to root.
> >
> > Why do you think that? '~' is just shell shorthand for user's home
> > directory.
>
> root quite often isn’t recognized as a
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 04:20:17PM -0400, Bee.Lists wrote:
> > On May 13, 2019, at 2:46 PM, Pete Biggs wrote:
> > Why do you think that? '~' is just shell shorthand for user's home
> > directory.
>
> root quite often isn’t recognized as a proper user. ~/.bash_profile
> isn’t loaded because
> On May 13, 2019, at 2:46 PM, Pete Biggs wrote:
>
>> First, the ~ which might not apply to root.
>
> Why do you think that? '~' is just shell shorthand for user's home
> directory.
root quite often isn’t recognized as a proper user. ~/.bash_profile isn’t
loaded because it’s not a normal
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 01:39:27PM -0400, Bee.Lists wrote:
> $ man bash (INVOCATION)
You might also benefit from reading the man page for 'su', which will
explain why running 'su -' is different from running 'su'.
--
Jonathan Billings
___
CentOS
> ~/.bash_profile
> The personal initialization file, executed for login shells
>
> First, the ~ which might not apply to root.
Why do you think that? '~' is just shell shorthand for user's home
directory.
> Second, it’s a “personal” init file, which also might not pertain to
OK that’s exactly what I just was questioning. The documentation wasn’t clear
on the ‘man bash’ (INVOCATION) notes.
So I entered my inclusion of my aliases file (it’s my own) inside .bashrc.
Thank you
> On May 13, 2019, at 1:31 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
>
> .bash_profile will not be read
$ man bash (INVOCATION)
When bash is invoked as an interactive login shell, or as a non-interactive
shell with the --login option, it first reads and executes commands from the
file /etc/profile, if that file
exists. After reading that file, it looks for ~/.bash_profile,
~/.bash_login,
Once upon a time, Bee.Lists said:
> No, this isn’t a case of multi partitions, clusters, or anything silly. I
> just want a set of aliases loaded for su. /root/.bash_profile isn’t loading,
> and there isn’t any obvious choice as to where the loaded .bash* were loading
> from.
No, this isn’t a case of multi partitions, clusters, or anything silly. I just
want a set of aliases loaded for su. /root/.bash_profile isn’t loading, and
there isn’t any obvious choice as to where the loaded .bash* were loading from.
> On May 13, 2019, at 9:11 AM, Stephen John Smoogen
OK, I haven’t tested for that loadup yet, and the .bashrc is indeed there. I
thought .bashrc was loaded first, then .bash_profile. This is for normal user.
Just tested it again, and /root/.bash_profile is not loading. Tried this in
/root/.bashrc:
source /root/.bash_profile
That created
On Mon, 2019-05-13 at 13:06 -0400, Bee.Lists wrote:
> Ah thank you. Having forgotten this, I already had all my aliases
> and instructions in there. For some reason they aren’t loading. If
> I do this, then everything loads:
>
> source /root/.bash_profile
>
> So there’s an indication this
Ah thank you. Having forgotten this, I already had all my aliases and
instructions in there. For some reason they aren’t loading. If I do this,
then everything loads:
source /root/.bash_profile
So there’s an indication this isn’t loading upon entry into su. Is this
normal?
> On May
Sent: Monday, 13 May, 2019 13:28:24
Subject: [CentOS] root .bash_profile?
Hi folks. Just wondering how I can implement an automatic .bash_profile for
root. I have to load my user .bash_profile every time I get into root, and I
would like a better solution. There is no /home/ for root, s
On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 08:28, Bee.Lists wrote:
> Hi folks. Just wondering how I can implement an automatic .bash_profile
> for root. I have to load my user .bash_profile every time I get into root,
> and I would like a better solution. There is no /home/ for root, so I’m a
> bit confused if
DoLp3_iSss=BtGUZ97pcKOFG7bhNzhabJQysuxxWgjVQIWf3J07Wj8=ugp8dpIHA9dciXeJwCp2QajbDnF239ydtrHUdQtebNU=
- Original Message -
> From: "Bee.Lists"
> To: "CentOS mailing list"
> Sent: Monday, 13 May, 2019 13:28:24
> Subject: [CentOS] root .bash_pro
On Mon, 2019-05-13 at 08:28 -0400, Bee.Lists wrote:
> Hi folks. Just wondering how I can implement an automatic .bash_profile for
> root. I have to load my
> user .bash_profile every time I get into root, and I would like a better
> solution. There is no /home/
> for root, so I’m a bit
Hi,
The $home of root is /root, just copy it there.
--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
Nux!
www.nux.ro
- Original Message -
> From: "Bee.Lists"
> To: "CentOS mailing list"
> Sent: Monday, 13 May, 2019 13:28:24
> Subject: [CentOS]
Hi folks. Just wondering how I can implement an automatic .bash_profile for
root. I have to load my user .bash_profile every time I get into root, and I
would like a better solution. There is no /home/ for root, so I’m a bit
confused if this is even allowed.
Any insight appreciated.
39 matches
Mail list logo
