[NTLUG:Discuss] Re: SuSE 9 or 9.1 PATH environment changes after su

[Bryan J. Smith]

On Fri, 2004-09-10 at 12:06, terry wrote:
> I'm thinking that aliasing su - to su is pretty handy because I, for 
> one, find no need to just use su without -
> My question is, (and I know I'm probably showing my ignorance here, 
> but), in what case would it be better to use su without - ?

I do all the time -- especially when building/configuring/installing
software.  I try to do such as a regular user, but some system-wide
components/steps require root on occasion.  In those cases, I need the
user environment.  Another issue is when I'm dealing with services --
cvs, postgresql, etc...  I need to do something as root, but inherent
the service's environment.

Or better yet, I need to su as a _non-root_ user, but with a user's
environment!  E.g., I'm building something _for_ a service, but the
service's environment would _not_ include the same build environment as
a regular user (for obvious security reasons).  Remember, "su" doesn't
stand for "SUperuser," but "Switch User."  ;->

This is as true now with Linux as it has always been with various UNIX
flavors since the [UNIX] epoch.  I understand the "convienence" _some_
might want, but the "-" option exists for a damn good reason --
especially to use "older UNIX wennies."

Everyone has a their preferences, and it's cool if you like a distro
that aliases "su" to "su -" by default.  But nothing makes me cringe
more than when someone says a distribution is "broken" because it
doesn't have the same defaults.

<attitude=on, please excuse me>
If someone can point out a Linux Standards Base (LSB) reference that
says otherwise, I will readily accept that Red Hat _is_ "broken."  Until
then, from an "old UNIX wennie" standpoint, I like Red Hat for damn good
reasons, so don't call it "broken."

In fact, distros that don't recognize the very real need for the lack of
"-" with su (let alone other default parameters) are only going to cause
themselves grief.  I don't mean to seem "elitist" (I really am not
saying this as such), but I've seen this happening with more and more
supposed "user friendly distros."  The reality is that Windows-style
"defaults" and/or program defaults of "most users aren't going to do X"
are starting to make their way into Linux distros.

There's nothing wrong with that in general.  But when it _conflicts_
with something a sysadmin _should_ know on why a parameter, setting or
option should _not_ always be used -- that's a bit dangerous.  And that
reminds me of the same "tunnel vision" that I deal with Windows admins
day in and day out -- typically when they pull me in to fix their
networks.

In a nutshell, it doesn't matter what OS you use.  You need to _know_
why different options, settings and switches exist -- and not merely set
defaults, aliases, etc.. for the 90% "convienence" because that 10% will
bite you in the rear.  ;-ppp
</attitude>

Again, everyone has their preferences.  Just don't call a distro
"broken" if it doesn't have the same defaults.

-- 
     Linux Enthusiasts call me anti-Linux.
   Windows Enthusisats call me anti-Microsoft.
 They both must be correct because I have over a
decade of experience with both in mission critical
environments, resulting in a bigotry dedicated to
 mitigating risk and focusing on technologies ...
           not products or vendors
--------------------------------------------------
Bryan J. Smith, E.I.         b.j.smith at ieee.org