Re: Question regarding sudo and su

On 10/05/2023 12:20 PM, old sixpack13 wrote: KISS bash history CRTL+r and keyed in "ether" and ENTER thanks anyway ! That works, of course, if the line you need to repeat is different every time. If it's something you use all the time, either a one-liner script, or an alias in .bashrec migh

Re: Question regarding sudo and su

> On 10/03/2023 03:35 PM, old sixpack13 wrote: > > If you're using that exact same command often enough, create an alias > for it and put it into your .bashrc. That way, you not only save > keystrokes, you avoid typoes. KISS bash history CRTL+r and keyed in "ether" and ENTER thanks anyway ! _

Re: Question regarding sudo and su

> On 3 Oct 2023, at 22:15, old sixpack13 wrote: > > I don't want to have user joe in sudo group Why not? You can control who runs which command with sudoers config. Barry ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send a

Re: Question regarding sudo and su

On 10/03/2023 03:35 PM, old sixpack13 wrote: I've tested similar. If you're using that exact same command often enough, create an alias for it and put it into your .bashrc. That way, you not only save keystrokes, you avoid typoes. ___ users mailin

Re: Question regarding sudo and su

> On 10/3/23 14:35, old sixpack13 wrote: > > Add "-P" to the "su" command. Thanks again and @ALL the working command is: su -P -c "sudo ether-wake -i enp3s0 && ping nuc" - ron ___ users mailing list

Re: Question regarding sudo and su

On 10/3/23 14:35, old sixpack13 wrote: On 10/3/23 14:14, old sixpack13 wrote: su -c "sudo ether-wake -i enp3s0 && ping nuc" - ron Thanks ! I've tested similar. with your command I get: Password: sudo: a terminal is required to read the password; either use the

Re: Question regarding sudo and su

> On 10/3/23 14:14, old sixpack13 wrote: > > su -c "sudo ether-wake -i enp3s0 && ping nuc" - ron Thanks ! I've tested similar. with your command I get: Password: sudo: a terminal is required to read the password; either use the -S option to read from standa

Re: Question regarding sudo and su

On 10/3/23 14:14, old sixpack13 wrote: I have the following problem: I'm logged in as user joe (he is not in sudo group) and want to etherwake a remote box, called nuc, via an one-liner in an script. now, on an command line, I usually do 1. su - ron (ron is in sudo group) 2. and then

Re: Question regarding sudo and su

On 10/3/23 14:20, Joe Zeff wrote: On 10/03/2023 03:14 PM, old sixpack13 wrote: now, on an command line, I usually do 1. su - ron (ron is in sudo group) 2. and then sudo ether-wake -i enp3s0 && ping nu Why?  If you have access to su and the root password, why bother with sudo?  Jus

Re: Question regarding sudo and su

On 10/03/2023 03:14 PM, old sixpack13 wrote: now, on an command line, I usually do 1. su - ron (ron is in sudo group) 2. and then sudo ether-wake -i enp3s0 && ping nu Why? If you have access to su and the root password, why bother with sudo? Just use su -c "ether-wake -i enp3s

Question regarding sudo and su

I have the following problem: I'm logged in as user joe (he is not in sudo group) and want to etherwake a remote box, called nuc, via an one-liner in an script. now, on an command line, I usually do 1. su - ron (ron is in sudo group) 2. and then sudo ether-wake -i enp3s0 && ping n

Re: sudo / su with GUI apps - ?

st" 4. Copy the line that has "/unix:", all three parts 5. Use su - or sudo to get an interactive session for alternate user 6. Run xauth command with no arguments 7. Type "list" at the prompt 8. Assuming this user currently doesn't have permission (no entry for host/di

Re: sudo / su with GUI apps - ?

On 1/11/22 11:54, C Linus Hicks wrote: Making some assumptions about your requirements: 1. Make sure xauth is installed 2. Your DISPLAY environment variable is likely: ":0" - just verify it is set 3. Run the command: "xauth list" 4. Copy the line that has "/unix:&qu

Re: sudo / su with GUI apps - ?

", all three parts 5. Use su - or sudo to get an interactive session for alternate user 6. Run xauth command with no arguments 7. Type "list" at the prompt 8. Assuming this user currently doesn't have permission (no entry for host/display): 9. Type "add" and then paste

Re: sudo / su with GUI apps - ?

Hi L, > How do you get your Firefox to run/work with different user? > I'm thinking obvious - sudo, su - kind of 'runas' with > windows OS. Seeing as no-one has said this, yet: *** Running things as root is ill-advised. *** While running a file manager as root to

Re: sudo / su with GUI apps - ?

For root run GUI apps in KDE, I use kdesu. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ L

Re: sudo / su with GUI apps - ?

Making some assumptions about your requirements: 1. Make sure xauth is installed 2. Your DISPLAY environment variable is likely: ":0" - just verify it is set 3. Run the command: "xauth list" 4. Copy the line that has "/unix:", all three parts 5. Use su - or sudo to

Re: sudo / su with GUI apps - ?

On 1/11/22 10:32 AM, Robert Moskowitz wrote: Kludge I have used for some apps, notably my file browser to run as root is to: in Terminal su - run app from prompt with & to release it from Terminal. Kind of works. I use Xfce and have this one liner to run Thunar as root: beesu - th

Re: sudo / su with GUI apps - ?

On 11/01/2022 17:32, Robert Moskowitz wrote: On 1/11/22 12:23, lejeczek via users wrote: Hi guys. How do you get your Firefox to run/work with different user? I'm thinking obvious - sudo, su - kind of 'runas' with windows OS. Kludge I have used for some apps, notably my f

Re: sudo / su with GUI apps - ?

On 1/11/22 12:23, lejeczek via users wrote: Hi guys. How do you get your Firefox to run/work with different user? I'm thinking obvious - sudo, su - kind of 'runas' with windows OS. Kludge I have used for some apps, notably my file browser to run as root is to: in Termina

sudo / su with GUI apps - ?

Hi guys. How do you get your Firefox to run/work with different user? I'm thinking obvious - sudo, su - kind of 'runas' with windows OS. many thanks, L ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an em

su vs logut/login (was: character display quality difference)

between users. [SOLVED] Reply-To: In-Reply-To: <2d98c6ff-5924-9b60-d2d8-2b0899cd6...@comcast.net> On 21Dec2019 10:53, home user wrote: In the testing for this thread, I mostly fully signed off one account and fully logged in to the other rather than using "su".  For renaming

Re: .bash_profile: line execution based on su vs. direct login. [SOLVED]

On Fri, 2019-11-22 at 02:45 +, home user wrote: > it's easy to lose the cursor when there's so much display real- > estate. It's been my experience for years that xeyes really helps > find and keep track of the trackball pointer's location. It doesn't help when things blank the mouse cursor,

Re: .bash_profile: line execution based on su vs. direct login.

Samuel Sieb wrote: > On 11/21/19 1:48 PM, Todd Zullinger wrote: >> Indeed. And while pidof would have probably been a better >> solution for the initial problem we thought we were trying >> to solve, I think knowing that you only want to skip user1 >> from starting new xeyes if it is already runni

Re: .bash_profile: line execution based on su vs. direct login. [SOLVED]

> On 11/21/19 4:24 PM, home user wrote: > > Just for curiosity, why? Is it so you can find your mouse pointer? Yes. In the good 'ol days when I was an AWIPS programmer, I learned the advantage of a 2-monitor workstation. At least a decade ago, published human factors research confirmed that a

Re: .bash_profile: line execution based on su vs. direct login. [SOLVED]

On 11/21/19 4:24 PM, home user wrote:    # put one pair of xeyes in the upper right corner of the left monitor...    /usr/bin/xeyes -geometry 1000x150+1559+0 -fg black -center pink \   -outline black &    # and one pair of xeyes in the upper left corner of the right monitor.

Re: .bash_profile: line execution based on su vs. direct login. [SOLVED]

and the answer is... - bash.1[~]: cat .bash_profile # .bash_profile # Get the aliases and functions if [ -f ~/.bashrc ]; then     . ~/.bashrc fi # User specific environment and startup programs PATH=$PATH:$HOME/.local/bin:$HOME/bin export PATH # If there are no xeyes already running, then.

Re: .bash_profile: line execution based on su vs. direct login.

Thank-you, Samuel. I did the experiment. Both the double-quotes and the square brackets had to be deleted. The result worked for user1 and user2 being regular users. Next I'll edit root's .bash_profile, and see if the solution works when user2 is root. Actually, user2 almost always is root.

Re: .bash_profile: line execution based on su vs. direct login.

On 11/21/19 1:48 PM, Todd Zullinger wrote: Samuel Sieb wrote: On 11/21/19 1:16 PM, home user wrote: if ! [[ "pgrep xeyes > /dev/null" ]] ; then This is still the problem. Remove those quotes. And you could remove the brackets as well, they aren't necessary. Indeed. And while pidof would

Re: .bash_profile: line execution based on su vs. direct login.

Samuel Sieb wrote: > On 11/21/19 1:16 PM, home user wrote: >> if ! [[ "pgrep xeyes > /dev/null" ]] ; then > > This is still the problem. Remove those quotes. And you could remove the > brackets as well, they aren't necessary. Indeed. And while pidof would have probably been a better solution f

Re: .bash_profile: line execution based on su vs. direct login.

On 11/21/19 1:16 PM, home user wrote: if ! [[ "pgrep xeyes > /dev/null" ]] ; then This is still the problem. Remove those quotes. And you could remove the brackets as well, they aren't necessary. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject

Re: .bash_profile: line execution based on su vs. direct login.

es show up as they should. C. (3 steps) 1. From the login screen, I log in as user1; the xeyes show up as they should. 2. I launch a terminal. 3. In that user1 terminal, I enter "su --login user2", and then enter the password. xeyes show up the same as in B above. That happens to be di

Re: .bash_profile: line execution based on su vs. direct login.

On Wed, 2019-11-20 at 16:52 -0700, home user wrote: > > if ! pidof ksysguard > /dev/null ; then ... > Thank-you Patrick. > I studied the man page for pidof. As I understand it, it implies that > pidof does not work across login names; user2 cannot see user1's processes: You misread what the man

Re: .bash_profile: line execution based on su vs. direct login.

On 11/21/19 2:30 PM, Todd Zullinger wrote: > Those aren't actual code snippets you used, are they? This > code: > > if ! [[ "pgrep ksysguard" ]] ; then > > is testing whether the string is empty or not rather than > running the command and checking for output. You can see > that by running:

Re: .bash_profile: line execution based on su vs. direct login.

home user wrote: >> You could also use 'pgrep ksysguard' ... > Thank-you, Todd. > I tried it.  It does not work.  I don't know why. Nor do I. We'd need to see the actual code you ran and its output for that. :) > I tried both > if ! [[ "pgrep ksysguard" ]] ; then > and > if [[ "pgrep -v ksysguar

Re: .bash_profile: line execution based on su vs. direct login.

> Are you saying that the question you asked initially > isn't the actual one you needed answering? The initial question was: > >How do I, within the .bash_profile if test, distinguish su connection > > vs. direct login from the login screen? That was the real question. 

Re: .bash_profile: line execution based on su vs. direct login.

On 11/21/19 7:43 AM, home user wrote: > My real .bash_profile is trying to manage two pairs of xeyes, each with 5 > command line options.  So Ed's autostart suggestions do not apply. Why don't you state precisely what you'd like to accomplish so energy isn't expended by folks on issues which may

Re: .bash_profile: line execution based on su vs. direct login.

On 11/21/19 7:52 AM, home user wrote: > > if ! pidof ksysguard > /dev/null ; then ... > Thank-you Patrick. > I studied the man page for pidof.  As I understand it, it implies that pidof > does not work across login names; user2 cannot see user1's processes: > - > [from the description of optio

Re: .bash_profile: line execution based on su vs. direct login.

> if ! pidof ksysguard > /dev/null ; then ... Thank-you Patrick. I studied the man page for pidof.  As I understand it, it implies that pidof does not work across login names; user2 cannot see user1's processes: - [from the description of option "-c"] This option is ignored for non-root user

Re: .bash_profile: line execution based on su vs. direct login.

> You could also use 'pgrep ksysguard' ... Thank-you, Todd. I tried it.  It does not work.  I don't know why. When I log in as user1, and then do "su --login user2", it does work. When I log in as user2, it does not work. I did a lot of testing using ordin

Re: .bash_profile: line execution based on su vs. direct login.

On 11/21/19 7:29 AM, home user wrote: > > FWIW, it is bad practice to answer multiple posts in the same message. > I didn't know that.  sorry. > > > For GNOME it is almost as simple. ... > Thank-you, Ed.  I'm using ksysguard in this thread for simplicity. My real > .bash_profile is trying to manag

Re: .bash_profile: line execution based on su vs. direct login.

> FWIW, it is bad practice to answer multiple posts in the same message. I didn't know that.  sorry. > For GNOME it is almost as simple. ... Thank-you, Ed.  I'm using ksysguard in this thread for simplicity. My real .bash_profile is trying to manage two pairs of xeyes, each with 5 command line

Re: .bash_profile: line execution based on su vs. direct login.

On Tue, 2019-11-19 at 20:55 -0700, home user wrote: > if ! [[ "ps -ef | grep [k]sysguard" ]] ; then > ksysguard & > fi > - if ! pidof ksysguard > /dev/null ; then ... fi poc ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To un

Re: .bash_profile: line execution based on su vs. direct login.

home user wrote: > After coming to think that login and interactive modes are not the answer, I > started digging into ps, and piping its output into grep.  Unfortunately, > that generates another process "grep ksysguard ...".  Piping into "grep -v > ..." also doesn't help.  After groping all over

Re: .bash_profile: line execution based on su vs. direct login.

On 11/20/19 11:55 AM, home user wrote: FWIW, it is bad practice to answer multiple posts in the same message. Anyway > > Are you a KDE user? > Thank-you, Ed. > Well, after 6 years, you haven't made me a KDE convert yet!  :) > I'm mostly a Gnome user. For GNOME it is almost as simple. If th

Re: .bash_profile: line execution based on su vs. direct login.

rminal, user1 enters the command "su --login user2". su prompts for user2's password; he enters it. (it's interactive mode now, right?) - Now it's unlikely that user2 wants a new ksysguard launched by his .bash_profile at this point, since the ksysguard launched by user

Re: .bash_profile: line execution based on su vs. direct login.

onment and startup programs > > PATH=$PATH:$HOME/.local/bin:$HOME/bin > export PATH > > ksysguard & > > # the end. > --- > But I want the KSysGuard to be launched only when: > * the session is interactive (not batch, cron, anacron, or at); > and >

Re: .bash_profile: line execution based on su vs. direct login.

- > But I want the KSysGuard to be launched only when: > * the session is interactive (not batch, cron, anacron, or at); > and > * it's a direct login from the login screen, not an "su" connection. > How do I do that in my .bash_profile? That is, > - > if [ what g

.bash_profile: line execution based on su vs. direct login.

end. --- But I want the KSysGuard to be launched only when: * the session is interactive (not batch, cron, anacron, or at); and * it's a direct login from the login screen, not an "su" connection. How do I do that in my .bash_profile? That is, - if [ what goes here? ]

Re: No "su" / Admin account in Fedora 29?

On 10/12/18 1:26 PM, Alessio Ciregia wrote: On Fri, Oct 12, 2018, 10:21 PM Rick Stevens > wrote: I just did a VM install of F29/XFCE from the live XFCE iso and you can The reported behavior is related only to Fedora Workstation (GNOME). Also Fedora 28

Re: No "su" / Admin account in Fedora 29?

On 10/12/18 1:26 PM, Alessio Ciregia wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018, 10:21 PM Rick Stevens > wrote: > > > I just did a VM install of F29/XFCE from the live XFCE iso and you can > > > > The reported behavior is related only to Fedora Workstation (GNOME).

Re: No "su" / Admin account in Fedora 29?

On Fri, Oct 12, 2018, 10:21 PM Rick Stevens wrote: > > I just did a VM install of F29/XFCE from the live XFCE iso and you can > The reported behavior is related only to Fedora Workstation (GNOME). Also Fedora 28 doesn't ask you to set a root password. < https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/

Re: No "su" / Admin account in Fedora 29?

On 10/12/18 12:45 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote: > On 10/12/18 12:39 PM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote: >> Hello all, I was just wondering how to go about creating the "su" / >> admin account for F-29? I installed the beta and it only created the >> main user,...I'm

Re: No "su" / Admin account in Fedora 29?

On 10/12/18 12:39 PM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote: Hello all, I was just wondering how to go about creating the "su" / admin account for F-29? I installed the beta and it only created the main user,...I'm almost certain that in F-28 there was an option upon install to c

Re: No "su" / Admin account in Fedora 29?

On 10/12/18 3:39 PM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote: Hello all, I was just wondering how to go about creating the "su" / admin account for F-29? I installed the beta and it only created the main user,...I'm almost certain that in F-28 there was an option upon install to c

No "su" / Admin account in Fedora 29?

Hello all, I was just wondering how to go about creating the "su" / admin account for F-29? I installed the beta and it only created the main user,...I'm almost certain that in F-28 there was an option upon install to create the admin/root account? I didn't see it in the b

Re: xhost or firefox - cannot use firefox with su

On 05/20/2018 01:14 PM, lejeczek via users wrote: > hi there > > in f27 this: xhost +; su auser > worked okey, I could use firefox just fine, but now in f28 firefox does not > work anymore. It opens but does not load any content. > I wonder if you guys know why? I use a

Re: xhost or firefox - cannot use firefox with su

Allegedly, on or about 20 May 2018, Tom Horsley sent: > I gave up on trying to get direct access as a different > user to the display, sometimes it would work, sometimes > it wouldn't work, and I could never track down why. Firefox had a habit of always trying to use the local browser window. I s

Re: xhost or firefox - cannot use firefox with su

I gave up on trying to get direct access as a different user to the display, sometimes it would work, sometimes it wouldn't work, and I could never track down why. I always use ssh with X forwarding now to run apps as a different user. Something like this: ssh -l auser -X localhost firefox & mig

Re: xhost or firefox - cannot use firefox with su

check to see if the firfox profile is accessible by auser. In FC27 the testing was not as strict as in FC28... suomi On 05/20/2018 01:14 PM, lejeczek via users wrote: hi there in f27 this: xhost +; su auser worked okey, I could use firefox just fine, but now in f28 firefox does not work

xhost or firefox - cannot use firefox with su

hi there in f27 this: xhost +; su auser worked okey, I could use firefox just fine, but now in f28 firefox does not work anymore. It opens but does not load any content. I wonder if you guys know why? many thanks, L. ___ users mailing list -- users

Re: Sudo but no su -

On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 10:21 AM, D&R wrote: > On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 06:15:08 -0400 Tom H wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 5:41 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote: >>> On 04/27/2018 07:26 AM, D&R wrote: >>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 08:22:12 -0400 >>>> Tom H wrot

Re: Sudo but no su -

D&R wrote: > On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 06:15:08 -0400 > Tom H wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 5:41 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote: >>> On 04/27/2018 07:26 AM, D&R wrote: >>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 08:22:12 -0400 >>>> Tom H wrote: >>

Re: Sudo but no su -

On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 06:15:08 -0400 Tom H wrote: > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 5:41 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote: > > On 04/27/2018 07:26 AM, D&R wrote: > >> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 08:22:12 -0400 > >> Tom H wrote: > >>> > >>> sudo -s > &

Re: Sudo but no su -

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 5:41 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote: > On 04/27/2018 07:26 AM, D&R wrote: >> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 08:22:12 -0400 >> Tom H wrote: >>> >>> sudo -s >>> sudo su >>> sudo su -l >>> sudo sh >>> sudo sh -l >>&

Re: Sudo but no su -

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 5:40 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote: > On 04/27/2018 05:13 AM, Tom H wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 4:14 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote: >>> >>> I suppose that's true, but in that case, there's probably a larger issue >>> involved and you'll likely need a live boot of some sort anyway. T

Re: Sudo but no su -

On 04/27/2018 07:26 AM, D&R wrote: On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 08:22:12 -0400 Tom H wrote: sudo -s sudo su sudo su -l sudo sh sudo sh -l sudo bash -l ... None of the sudo commands listed allow you to run a graphical program ie. meld. Is there some way to do that? Wayland does not let applicat

Re: Sudo but no su -

On 04/27/2018 05:13 AM, Tom H wrote: On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 4:14 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote: I suppose that's true, but in that case, there's probably a larger issue involved and you'll likely need a live boot of some sort anyway. There is one case where this does become a problem. If dracut runs i

Re: Sudo but no su -

On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 10:24:36 -0700 Rick Stevens wrote: > On 04/26/2018 07:50 PM, Dave Stevens wrote: > > On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 18:56:22 -0700 > > Rick Stevens wrote: > > > >> and utterly awesome and loveable) self. > > > > what?? what??? > > Are you saying I'm not awesome and lovable (des

Re: Sudo but no su -

>>>> become root rather than type sudo over and over. >>>> >>>> That's what "sudo -i" is for. >>> >>> Or "sudo bash" >> >> Sure, or >> >> sudo -s >> sudo su >> sudo su -l >> s

Re: Sudo but no su -

;>>>> become root rather than type sudo over and over. >>>> >>>> That's what "sudo -i" is for. >>> >>> Or "sudo bash" >> >> Sure, or >> >> sudo -s >> sudo su >> sudo su -l >>

Re: Sudo but no su -

On 04/26/2018 07:50 PM, Dave Stevens wrote: > On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 18:56:22 -0700 > Rick Stevens wrote: > >> and utterly awesome and loveable) self. > > what?? what??? Are you saying I'm not awesome and lovable (despite my misspelling)? That kind of hurts (insert pouty face here). However, the r

Re: Sudo but no su -

>>>> > >>>> I'm curious what you find you need to use a root login for. > >>> > >>> If I need to do more than one or two things as root, it's easier to > >>> become root rather than type sudo over and over. > >&

Re: Sudo but no su -

a root login for. >>> >>> If I need to do more than one or two things as root, it's easier to >>> become root rather than type sudo over and over. >> >> That's what "sudo -i" is for. > > Or "sudo bash" Sure, or sudo -s

Re: Sudo but no su -

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 4:14 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote: > On 04/26/2018 01:00 PM, Joe Zeff wrote: >> On 04/26/2018 12:14 PM, stan wrote: >>> >>> Good to know that it will always be there. Habit for me is to use root >>> and su instead of sudo. old dog - new trick

Re: Sudo but no su -

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 4:00 PM, Joe Zeff wrote: > On 04/26/2018 12:14 PM, stan wrote: >> >> Good to know that it will always be there. Habit for me is to use >> root and su instead of sudo. old dog - new tricks :-) > > Same here. If I ever had to work with Ubuntu, on

Re: Sudo but no su -

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 1:25 PM, stan wrote: > I think I remember reading that there will be no default root account > after install of F28 or later. For Fedora 28 Workstation. > Again, I think I remember the workaround was to use sudo, and then > create a root account with useradd. The root

Re: Sudo but no su -

On Thu, 2018-04-26 at 14:25 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 01:03:58PM -0400, Bob Goodwin wrote: > > I installed Virtual Manager in this Fedora 27 workstation system > > and > > created afedora 28 beta installation and was surprised to find I > > haveonly user bobg, no root a

Re: Sudo but no su -

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 13:09:43 -0700 Samuel Sieb wrote: > On 04/26/2018 01:03 PM, Joe Zeff wrote: > > On 04/26/2018 12:54 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote: > >> I'm curious what you find you need to use a root login for. > > > If I need to do more than one or two things as root, it's easier to > > > > beco

Re: Sudo but no su -

For what it's worth, systemd emergency/rescue target only accept a root login. Apparently it's complicated getting it to use a user in wheel. Anyway I add two boot parameters as a workaround rather than permanently enabling root. 1 systemd.debug-shell=1 tty9 will have a root shell, no password.

Re: Sudo but no su -

. >> In those cases sudo is cumbersome.  So, I will use "su -".   So, no matter >> what the >> default is I will be giving root a pw.  :-) :-) > > I have mentioned the "sudo -i" command several times in this thread, but I'm > wondering if it's not

Re: Sudo but no su -

On 04/26/2018 05:44 PM, Ed Greshko wrote: FWIW, I never have the need to login as root from the graphical interface.  But I do, at times, have the need to issue a series of commands from the command line as root. In those cases sudo is cumbersome.  So, I will use "su -".   So, no m

Re: Sudo but no su -

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 18:56:22 -0700 Rick Stevens wrote: > and utterly awesome and loveable) self. what?? what??? -- In modern fantasy (literary or governmental), killing people is the usual solution to the so-called war between good and evil. My books are not conceived in terms of such a war, a

Re: Sudo but no su -

esystems and >> many, many other things an active sysadmin has to do. > > Sam did say "root login".  Yes you need to be running a process "as root" > which sudo > provides but you need not "login" as root to do what you've mentioned. > > FWIW, I

Re: Sudo but no su -

e running a process "as root" which sudo provides but you need not "login" as root to do what you've mentioned. FWIW, I never have the need to login as root from the graphical interface.  But I do, at times, have the need to issue a series of commands from the command line

Re: Sudo but no su -

On 04/26/2018 12:54 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote: > On 04/26/2018 12:14 PM, stan wrote: >> On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 11:05:28 -0700 >> Samuel Sieb wrote: >>> I think the majority opinion now is that logging in as the root user >>> is discouraged.  In almost all cases sudo is sufficient and if you >>> need to d

Re: Sudo but no su -

On 04/26/2018 01:36 PM, Andre Robatino wrote: On 04/26/2018 12:14 PM, stan wrote: I'm curious what you find you need to use a root login for. The growisofs man page states "If executed under sudo(8) growisofs refuses to start." (and explains why). I don't know if there are other commands wit

Re: Sudo but no su -

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 12:54:08 -0700 Samuel Sieb wrote: > I'm curious what you find you need to use a root login for. I used > to use that all the time, but gradually I switched over and on my > desktop system, it is extremely rare that I use it. (I think only > when the graphical display is mess

Re: Sudo but no su -

> On 04/26/2018 12:14 PM, stan wrote: > > I'm curious what you find you need to use a root login for. The growisofs man page states "If executed under sudo(8) growisofs refuses to start." (and explains why). I don't know if there are other commands with the same issue.

Re: Sudo but no su -

On 04/26/2018 01:14 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote: I suppose that's true, but in that case, there's probably a larger issue involved and you'll likely need a live boot of some sort anyway. I'd find it both faster and easier to switch to a text console, log in as root and do what's needed. Of course,

Re: Sudo but no su -

On 04/26/2018 01:00 PM, Joe Zeff wrote: On 04/26/2018 12:14 PM, stan wrote: Good to know that it will always be there.  Habit for me is to use root and su instead of sudo.  old dog - new tricks  :-) Same here.  If I ever had to work with Ubuntu, one of the first things I'd do is set the

Re: Sudo but no su -

On 04/26/2018 01:03 PM, Joe Zeff wrote: On 04/26/2018 12:54 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote: I'm curious what you find you need to use a root login for. If I need to do more than one or two things as root, it's easier to become root rather than type sudo over and over. That's what "sudo -i" is for. _

Re: Sudo but no su -

On 04/26/2018 12:54 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote: I'm curious what you find you need to use a root login for. If I need to do more than one or two things as root, it's easier to become root rather than type sudo over and over. ___ users mailing list --

Re: Sudo but no su -

On 04/26/2018 12:14 PM, stan wrote: Good to know that it will always be there. Habit for me is to use root and su instead of sudo. old dog - new tricks :-) Same here. If I ever had to work with Ubuntu, one of the first things I'd do is set the root password. As things are now, y

Re: Sudo but no su -

On 04/26/2018 12:14 PM, stan wrote: On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 11:05:28 -0700 Samuel Sieb wrote: I think the majority opinion now is that logging in as the root user is discouraged. In almost all cases sudo is sufficient and if you need to do root things for a while, just use "sudo -i". For remote a

Re: Sudo but no su -

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 11:05:28 -0700 Samuel Sieb wrote: > The home directory for root is /root. Good to know that it will always be there. Habit for me is to use root and su instead of sudo. old dog - new tricks :-) > I think the majority opinion now is that logging in as the root use

Re: Sudo but no su -

On 04/26/2018 11:25 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 01:03:58PM -0400, Bob Goodwin wrote: I installed Virtual Manager in this Fedora 27 workstation system and created afedora 28 beta installation and was surprised to find I haveonly user bobg, no root account. Sometimes it's con

Re: Sudo but no su -

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 01:03:58PM -0400, Bob Goodwin wrote: > I installed Virtual Manager in this Fedora 27 workstation system and > created afedora 28 beta installation and was surprised to find I > haveonly user bobg, no root account. Sometimes it's convenient to > keep a work space for root and

Re: Sudo but no su -

On 04/26/2018 10:53 AM, stan wrote: Thanks for the info. Does there have to be a home directory for the obligatory root account? The tone of the discussions I read was that root user was an anachronism, and linux would be better without it. That's only my interpretation, of course, so it could

Re: Sudo but no su -

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 10:30:37 -0700 Samuel Sieb wrote: > There *has* to be a root account. By default there is no root > password unless you set one during the installation. I think there > has been talk of removing that option from the installer. All you > have to do is "sudo passwd" to set th

  1   2   3   >