On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 05:30:40PM -0700, Kevin O'Gorman wrote: > On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Bill Longman <bill.long...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 08/09/2010 01:08 PM, Robert Bridge wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Mick <michaelkintz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> There have been discussions on this list why sudo is a bad idea and sudo > > on > > >> *any* command is an even worse idea. You might as well be running > > everything > > >> as root, right? > > > > > > sudo normally logs the command executed, and the account which > > > executes it, so while not relevant for single user systems, it STILL > > > has benefits over running as root. > > > > ...excepting, of course, "sudo bash -l" which means you've given away > > the keys to the kingdom. > > > > I actually prefer "sudo su -" -- as long as I'm giving it away! :o)
Afaik, there is no reason for "sudo su -" It should be either su - or, if you are using sudo, sudo -i The disadvantage of "su -" is that it requires the user to know the root password. But, "sudo -i" does the same thing without requiring the user to know the root password. William
