[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Chown ???

Hmm, guess none of you losers watch the Discovery channel, huh? Isn't
anybody interested in bettering themselves anymore? Sheesh...

Some cave paintings recently discovered in what was once the heart of
the early bronze age Germanic tribes (and carbon dated to that period in
confirmation) represent the (to date) earliest known documentation of
the SU command. SU, short for Starke Unterhose which literally means
Strong Underpants, is accepted at this time by every academician of
merit to allude to an abundance of male genitalia and consequently, root
privileges. Ergo, superuser.

10 minutes, people.

10 minutes of television which does NOT in any way involve a 3 person
jury of near-prominent unemployed "entertainers" will do wonders for the

Feed the mind, the rest will follow.


Oh, incidentally, oddly as it may seem, there is as yet no documented
instance of the introduction of the '-' parameter to SU. Although many
believe it to have occurred in the same period as the cave paintings and
be indicative of an outstretched arm, communication the message "I have
strong underpants, and you are my bitch. I take your things now."

I'm not certain I agree with that bit, though.


On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 14:29 +0000, g wrote:
> Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > The original meaning of 'su' is 'superuser'. You can find it in Unix
> > manuals from the 1970s. 'Substitute user' is a lame back-formation from
> > when the command was extended to allow changing effective id's to any
> > user and not just root.
> i am not in disagreement with this as i used *unix* in it's early form. my early unix
> manuals are buried too deep to get to, so i can not quote from them or find when
> change came about.
> but this is not *unix*,  we are discussing *linux*. in *linux*, the command 'su' is
> 'substitute user or group'.
> in *linux*, 'su' gives a user who knows 'root' password, ability to become _any_user_
> or a member of _any_group_. therefore, i again say, command 'su' is not 'super user'.
> so if i give command 'su poc' or 'su paul', i do not become a 'superuser'. i simply
> become user 'poc' or user 'paul'.
> > DOS systems have no concept of user privilege, and hence have no concept
> > of superuser. Windows systems do have user privileges but AFAIK they
> > don't use the superuser terminology.
> *msdos* systems and *ms windows* have very little concept of anything.
> -- 
> fedora-list mailing list
> fedora-list redhat com
> To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
> Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]