Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!mintaka!spdcc!tauxersvilli!alphalpha!nazgul
From: nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley)
Newsgroups: alt.sources.d
Subject: Re: sux, an enhancer for su
Message-ID: <1991Apr27.024508.9228@alphalpha.com>
Date: 27 Apr 91 02:45:08 GMT
References: <130392@uunet.UU.NET> <1991Apr25.142159.6826@convex.com> <462@frcs.UUCP> <7WYA.A2@xds13.ferranti.com> <130394@uunet.UU.NET>
Organization: asi
Lines: 27

In article <130394@uunet.UU.NET> kyle@uunet.uu.net (Kyle Jones) writes:
>safety.  Using a root shell is like using a table saw without the
>guard plate.  Make it easy for people to become root when they
>need to, and they're less likely to run as root when they don't
>need to.  This is what the command is supposed to offer.  As for
>the consequences, well, there are always tradeoffs.

If that's the case, then don't bother starting a shell.  Just
have a one shot command executor.

I've been using:
	
    be user-name command-name arguments...

for years.  It's great.  I don't become root to do things I don't
have to, I become exactly as powerful as I have to.

I wouldn't recommend it in an environment where you don't trust
people though.
-- 
Alfalfa Software, Inc.          |       Poste:  The EMail for Unix
nazgul@alfalfa.com              |       Send Anything... Anywhere
617/646-7703 (voice/fax)        |       info@alfalfa.com

I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.