[ale] Sudo

[Jim Popovitch]

On Wed, 2005-05-18 at 21:24 -0400, Michael B. Trausch wrote:
> Okay... I'll take this in little baby steps for you:

Errr, I've been specifying it in second-grade details for you. ;-)


> The issue that you're talking about is that you want bash - or another
> shell - to remember that you used sudo when you executed a command.  So,
> instead of:
> 
> 	$ ifconfig eth0 192.168.0.100 [...]
> 
> It would be:
> 
> 	$ sudo ifconfig eth0 192.168.0.100 [...]

Bingo! 

> 
> How *smart* do you think this could *possibly* be?  There's a reason
> that you have to explicity specify that you want root privilege.  Are
> you truly that lazy?

Lazy?  No, just not always in a root console (that would be stupid to
leave one open, right? :-) so sometimes doing privileged commands in a
user shell is quite natural.  I would bet that there is not one
experienced sudo user (so that discounts you ;-) that has never executed
in a command and then had to use history to re-execute the command under
sudo.  This isn't lazy, it's due to habits and human nature.

> In addition, giving sudo the intelligence to look at a command line and
> go, "Oooh, I'm needed to make this command succeed," is also playing
> with fire.  At worst, you're talking about implementing it with a hash
> table, and perhaps learning from repeated execution.  However, this
> flies in the face of everything that has anything to do with the Unix
> philosophy.

Dude, you don't know what you are talking about.  This is shell
functionality, not sudo.  It would make no sense to put this
functionality in sudo, as NOT thinking to use sudo is the whole reason
behind needing this funtionality.  :rolleyes:

> Want that functionality in sudo?  Fork it and create a new program with
> a different name so that people who would think it is evil and
> unwarranted (which it is) can not be tricked into using it and
> consequently grepping the source to remove that "functionality".

LOL!  Go away.  

-Jim P.