On 29/08/2015 20:10, KatolaZ wrote:
> Well, I wouldn't say that su is a broken concept on its own. In
> assessing the quality of ideas and software one should always take
> into account the motivations which led to a certain solution.
>
> su appeared in AT&T Unix Version 1:

Yes. However, Unix has evolved in 40 years, sometimes in a good
way, sometimes in a not so good way. And piling on more functionality
into su wasn't exactly the best idea: from a simple privilege-gaining
tool, it mutated into something between what it was and a complete
login - it lost the clarity of concept it had at first.


> The fact that we have gone a bit further than that with su, asking it
> to do things it was not conceived for, is our problem, not su's one.

Oh, I'm not blaming some abstract entity called "su". When I say that
su is not good (anymore), it's obviously on us.
There's a reason why I have written programs performing privilege gain
without bit s executables. ;)

--
Laurent