On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 16:38:33 +0200
Laurent Bercot <ska-devel@???> wrote:

> On 29/08/2015 14:43, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> > 'su' is not a concept, it's a program.
>
> <grumble> Okay, let's clarify.
> A program is the implementation of an idea. The idea is often
> unwritten or unspoken, or forgotten, and people will only refer
> to the implementation; but good design always starts with the idea,
> the concept, of what the program is supposed to do.
>
> When Lennart says "su is a broken concept", he's saying "the
> concept behind the su program is not clear or well-defined, and
> it was not a good idea to implement it"; and I agree with that.
> (Then he naturally branches onto his NIH obsession and decides
> that UNIX is bad and systemd must reinvent everything, which I
> obviously disagree with.)
>
> As you're saying, the correct design is to separate the tasks
> that the su program accomplishes, if one doesn't need a full-
> environment root shell.
> But if a full-environment root shell is needed, logging in as
> root works. That's exactly what the "login" _concept_ is.

The point is this: If su is a broken concept, write a substitute.
Publicize the substitute. Proclaim from the town square that su is
depricated. But leave su functional for those who make the choice to
use it!

SteveT

Steve Litt
August 2015 featured book: Troubleshooting: Just the Facts
http://www.troubleshooters.com/tjust