On Sun, Jan 09, 2000 at 03:05:12PM -0500, Arcady Genkin wrote:
> IIRC, bash is almost always dynamically linked, while sh is statically
> linked.
Guess again:
kuno ~$ ls -l /bin/sh
lrwxrwxrwx1 root root4 May 25 2000 /bin/sh -> bash
kuno ~$
> It's a good measure to have a fal
William T Wilson wrote:
>
> On Sun, 9 Jan 2000, Patrick Kirk wrote:
>
> > I need to add a second superuser.
>
> No you don't.
>
> If you want someone else to have root access, then just give them the root
> password.
>
> If you want someone else to be able to do some root tasks but not really
Thinking about it, you're right so I won't use it. Thanks.
Thinking about it, you're right.
Thanks.
Patrick
On Sun, 9 Jan 2000, Patrick Kirk wrote:
> I need to add a second superuser.
No you don't.
If you want someone else to have root access, then just give them the root
password.
If you want someone else to be able to do some root tasks but not really
be root, you have two choices.
1) Make the prog
Brian Servis writes:
> If sh -> ash and 'things break' then those 'things' should call bash or
> whatever shell explicitly, and a bug report should be filed against that
> 'thing' .
Yes, of course. However, the gentleman's goal appears to be improved
robustness, not Debian debugging.
> I have ha
FWIW, I think I would rather have "toor" (or a username of your choosing)
*not* have UID 0, and instead just be permitted to su to root if it
becomes necessary, while having a statically linked shell such as sash.
You can force a shell different from root's usual with the -s (or
--shell=) argument
*- On 9 Jan, John Hasler wrote about "Re: Adding a superuser"
> Arcady Genkin writes:
>> I wonder what would be the rationale for not including a standard sh in a
>> distro.
>
> When called as sh bash is about as standard as any. If you don't care for
> ba
Arcady Genkin writes:
> I wonder what would be the rationale for not including a standard sh in a
> distro.
When called as sh bash is about as standard as any. If you don't care for
bash you can always install ash, which is the NetBSD sh. If you link sh to
it you may break a few things, though.
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> lrwxrwxrwx1 root root4 Nov 6 19:39 /bin/sh -> bash
Geez! Thanks for pointing this out, I had no idea. I wonder what would
be the rationale for not including a standard sh in a distro... 8-/
> Make 'sash' toor's shell.
Done. Thanks f
Arcady Genkin writes:
> Well, I have two superuser accounts on my system: root with default shell
> "bash", and toor with default shell "sh".
> ...
> IIRC, bash is almost always dynamically linked, while sh is statically
> linked.
lrwxrwxrwx1 root root4 Nov 6 19:39 /bin/sh ->
Robert Marlow (2) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why on Earth would u want to???
Well, I have two superuser accounts on my system: root with default
shell "bash", and toor with default shell "sh". This is very common
usage on BSD systems -- if bash becomes corrupted or inaccessible, you
can login
Why on Earth would u want to???
unless u have a really, really good reason to, don't bother and just have the
one superuser. the more superusers u have the more of a security risk you
create since it makes available more priveleged accounts for malicious users
to "hack" and do whatever they please
I need to add a second superuser.
useradd -G root name fails as does every permutation I can think of.
Would someone mind just dropping me a line with the correct useradd or adduser
or usermod syntax?
Thanks!
Patrick
14 matches
Mail list logo
