More PATH fallout. Who decided this was a good idea?

[Les Mikesell]

Callum Lerwick wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-12-06 at 14:08 -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
>> A not too difficult compromise would be a bash completion plugin which
>> knows when the command starts with "sudo" to complete these kinds of
>> binaries.
> 
> Well the point is I want to execute these commands *without* sudo.
> 
>> One could also argue that since sudo isn't the default, it can't have
>> a strong influence on how the OS works.  (I do personally wish sudo
>> *was* the default though)
> 
> There was an argument about this a while back. One side argues that sudo
> provides no additional security thus should not be default, the other
> side (well, me at least) argues that sudo adds convenience and helps
> reduce foot-shooting. Which is why I'm in the habit of running admin
> commands to get the help page as non-root. My foot has some ugly
> scars... :)

Basically, if you don't like sudo in a distro that tries to force it on 
you, you'll end up doing 'sudo su -'in a few windows and keeping them 
open so you don't have to do it all the time.

> I'm inclined to agree sudo doesn't necessarily add security. But sudo is
> *in* the distro, and it's clear a lot of people use it. Just because
> it's not default does not mean its usage does not deserve consideration.

Sudo can be sort-of handy to hide behind launchers for people who don't 
use the command line, but then the issue of path is mostly irrelevant.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com