Which use of sudo do you prefer to get a root shell? Please explain your votes in detail in corresponding posts.

Note the -. Because it replicates root's environment closely and that's how I've always done it.

I use because it keeps me in my home environment. That's usually where I want to be anyway.

None of the above.

I use either sudo su root, sudo -s, sudo su -, or, if in a GUI (in the Alt+F2 run dialog):

which will simply run a terminal emulator window as root to start with. Sorry if this hasn't been included in the poll; I should have included this option.

sudo su because I usually need to do more than one thing.

None of the above.

sudo do this
sudo do that

etc.

0 members found this post helpful.

How about pressing Alt+F2 and typing gksudo gnome-terminal?

None of the above... i never use that. If i have to do something i just type sudo <command> (isn't it unsecure to gain root access?).

Sudo was designed, in about 1980, to selectively allow non-root users to perform specific activities with root or another user's permissions. More recently, Ubuntu has used sudo as a kludge to prevent users from gaining root permissions, usually through su, and inadvertently continuing to run as root beyond performing the activity that needed the root permissions. This was envisioned as a way to prevent users unfamiliar with the POSIX permissions system from running unsecured.

Opinions vary as to whether this is good, bad or indifferent in practice. It can certainly mean more typing. Many experienced Unix/Linux administrators choose to circumvent Ubuntu's use of sudo, for this reason. Such administrators have learned to religiously relinquish root status as soon as they no longer need it.

To be clear, it is dangerous, as Windows users have found, to consistently run as root. But virtually any self-inflicted damage that can be done running under su can just as easily be done with sudo. Starting Firefox with "sudo firefox" is just as dangerous as running "firefox" while logged in as root. The only real difference is the ease with which a negligent user could do one or the other inadvertently. In other words, sudo is just another, more restrictive, (and some would say, more tedious), way to achieve root access in the case of Ubuntu. Sudo can be used in far more ways to selectively grant permissions on multi-user systems, however, than is dreamt of in Canonical's philosophy.

1 members found this post helpful.

I don't use any of the above methods for gaining root permissions I just use su like it was intended..... I believe that sudo in most distros is too liberal in its allowing specific users to run anything as sudo. In some cases it really is just pointless to have it there since a normal user can run anything with sudo thus making them a superuser anyway. Better to limit sudo to allowing users to run specific commands that a normal user may run and need elevated permissions. I find the only times I need super user access is when I am editing a file in /etc or doing kernel work.

Then again I am not your normal ubuntu user either so. I guess its better then creating them as a admin user.

I use "sudo bash" long enough to set a root password on a fresh install, then I use "su -" so I can have the shell environment the way I like it. But I've also been a *nix user & software developer since the early 1980s.

"sudo program" and "su -"

sudo -i
The practice recommended on my last foray into the land of Canonical docs.

For the record, AFAIAC one password for both regular & root access is pseudo security.

Of course, your statement has merit, but there is a trade-off one must consider: When the password for the root account gets lost, and patches aren't made to the kernel and applications, security suffers as well. Since the root password gets used less than the user one, it is more likely to be lost or forgotten.

In a more perfect world, only computers would be allowed to use computers. Or something like that.

1 members found this post helpful.