Talk:Sudo

message: If a sudoer creates a file, which are the permissions on the file? Who is the owner, which mask? An eventually under which environment the commands are invoked? (setenv) These are questions I would like an answer.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.56.167.242 (talk) 01:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Permissions 

message: Is this a joke? How is Microsoft so arrogant to claim this and I hope no one is stupid enough to accept it.
:Isnt this part of the long list of undisclosed "patent violations" Microsoft keep shouting about? John.n-irl 08:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: haha, this is a joke. The article cited does not mention it. I'm removing it.--Ktdreyer 19:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it looks like it happened, though I don't know how it was approved...maybe no-one at the patent office uses Linux :) skyhawker666 (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microsoft Patent Dispute 

message: The page says sudo is under a BSD-style license, But http://www.sudo.ws/ clearly states it's under an ISC-style license.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.226.123.233 (talk • contribs).
:ISC is modified BSD. NicM 10:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: License?

message: Some examples would be really great
An example could be: sudo ifconfig,...
Or another, perhaps more humorous example here  ? :P 24.226.31.187 00:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it would not. 81.152.72.174 (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can now ask "Sudo make me a sandwich" of Siri-clone "Evi" and have it respond appropriately.  I think this is may mean it could be mildly noteworthy, if not necessarily noteworthy enough for this article yet.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.134.146.82 (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples 

message: I'm fairly happy with changes I've just done, but there really needs to be an "Advantages" section highlighting *why* sudo is used, and it's advantages over direct root logins or su-ing. The disadvantages/problems are in the article, but just not clearly enough identifiead as such, imho. --Snori 09:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advantages, problems 

message: I think the default location of the command should also be listed. --Darth Borehd 05:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of command 

message: Enough of this nonsense. And no, it doesn't matter what Ms Miller says. Let us quote from the manpage for sudo - which presumably Miller also maintains.
sudo - execute a command as another user
 sudo -V | -h | -l | -L | -v | -k | -K | -s | [ -H ] [-P ]
       [-S ] [ -b ] | [ -p prompt ] [ -c class|- ] [ -a auth_type
       ] [ -u username|#uid ] command
As is clearly seen, sudo can be used to execute commands as ANY user. root being default changes nothing.
Enough of this nonsense. As you expressly get to decide on which account you execute your commands, as the title of the page says expressly 'execute a command as ANOTHER user', the debate should fairly be closed.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.1.114.104 (talk) 
:cat(1) says:
 cat - concatenate and print files
:So cat should quite clearly be called catprint. I'm not even going to start on why anyone would possibly think it was sensible to call editors "vi" and "emacs." NicM 11:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Imagining is all good and well, but we need a cite. I think the whole issue is fairly clear when you consider http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22superuser+do%22 (13000 results) vs http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22substitute+user+do%22 (650 results). The latter is a later change by a few people who think it makes more sense as the abilities of sudo have drifted. NicM (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Please supply a cite showing that sudo is named after su and not after superuser. NicM (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, any cite referring to "substitute user do" or that it is named after su from before, say, 1991 would be pretty nice. NicM (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Here's an alternative citation - a pretty good one. The original source for sudo states "do as superuser". It does not use the word switch or substitute: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/net.sources/sudo/net.sources/rdwIP38fbCo/1L3R9K9zbEYJ Philipwhiuk (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: It's NOT Super-User Do

message: Sudowin a pretty interesting project. There doesn't seem to be much to say about it that the author doesn't say on the project page, though. Justin Force 19:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should sudowin have its own article? 

message: It's worth noticing that sudo does not exist to avoid using the root password. This is common usage in the new Mac/Ubuntu approach but in fact by default it requires the root password, and this is how it is used in most Linux distributions e.g. openSUSE. I have updated the main page accordingly and this is referenced back to the manpage.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.144.193 (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was not exactly true, how it was worded. I have changed the wording. The issue that is confusing is this: if you run the sudo command, it will prompt for your "USER" password, then allow you to run a command with "ROOT" authority. By default, it does not require the root password. --Unixguy 17:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Password required 

message: "A user must confirm his identity to sudo by supplying his password before running the target program"  This is false, since sudo has the NOPASSWD option.  No mention of this option is included in this article.  I'll make a change, if no one objects. Llamabr (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Password

message: because "sudo -u adam command" would run command as adam, therefore it is subsitute user do. also the su command stands for substitute user.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.128.252 (talk) 00:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not. The original source mentions 'do as superuser' not 'substitute a user': https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/net.sources/sudo/net.sources/rdwIP38fbCo/1L3R9K9zbEYJ 77.246.171.42 (talk) 10:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  it is substitute user do 

message: Removed the whole section since it only had the one sentence and the image it referred to was deleted.  I thought about putting in an external link, but it really didn't seem worth it.  Still, it's there if someone wants to put it back in.  Cosmo0 (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Popular Culture 

message: Pardon the temerity guys, but that was a very helpful way to think of sudo for me, which is why I inserted it into the intro parenthetical.
Manueluribe (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: "SUper-user DO" edit. 

message: The article 'Sudo Fun' in the external links section doesn't appear to be a guide to sudo as described, but a description of some of the security issues with sudo on Mac OS X. I think it isn't exactly relevant to this article. Tweisbach (talk) 01:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Looks like this has been addressed. Tweisbach (talk) 11:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sudo Fun 

message: For security reasons never grant user sudo privileges for any tool that is capable to open then edit and save config files (like vim, emacs, etc) unless you also grant this user full root access. ( via 'sudo -i').
Azzxxx (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example with 'sudo emacs' is bad. 

message: The 1985 posting of the source code of sudo to the usenet group net.sources is available in the archive of such groups at archive.org: https://archive.org/download/usenet-net/net.sources.mbox.zip The message ID in question is: 2622@sunybcs.UUCP. It did not contain any version of the "sudo lecture". JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  1985 source code of sudo 

message: The file /etc/sudoers may contain a list of users to execute a subset of commands while having the privileges of the root user or other specified user. 
The middle portion of that sentence seems poorly worded and should probably be re-written. 
Perhaps something as follows?
"The file /etc/sudoers may contain a list of users authorized to execute a subset of commands as if they had the privileges of the root user or other specified user. "
But "may contain" is still ambiguous. Is that "may" meaning might / possibly will? Or "may" meaning is allowed to?
Toddcs (talk) 19:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Configuration 

message: Would it be worthwhile to mention here that some Linux distributions, such as Ubuntu in its many forms, is set up so that all system administration is done via sudo, with no root password set by default, and your first user is automatically a member of wheel?  Other distros, such as Fedora (the one I use) require you to set a root password before the system is installed.  Again, your first regular user is in wheel by default, but that's an option that you can unselect if you prefer.  I'd just add it, but I'm not completely sure it's needed.  Thoughts?  JDZeff (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implications 

message: As the title says, seems the entire site is now different. Usx9 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 16:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: At the time of your comment the sixteenth citation was the one to MacDevCenter.com. It is one of a few that I've just fixed. Henstepl (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 16 no longer links to document 

message: Shouldn't the vulnerability discovered in 2021 be covered (was present for more than 10 years)?
E.g., covered in Security Now, episode 804, from 01 h 19 min 47 secs to 01 h 27 min 39 secs.
--Mortense (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a ZDNet article that also covers this topic, I think a mention might be warranted but it looks like the most recent update doesn't have that vulnerability. - Aoidh (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  2021 vulnerability  

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Baron samedit. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 13#Baron samedit until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  signed, Rosguill talk 20:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Baron samedit" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]