On 06/11/2013 08:01 AM, Steven Stern wrote: > When you're done with whatever you did and you get distracted then > return to the computer, you'll probably forget you are logged in as > root. That's why you either log out from root or close the terminal as soon as you're done doing root stuph.

John: >> If using "su -" regularly >> add this to /root/.bashrc to obtain the root prompt in red >> >> PS1="\[\033[1;31m\][\u@\h:\w]$\[\033[0m\] " Rejy M Cyriac: > That is a good tip ...but probably not for the colour-blind ;-) Use inverse colours, then (black text on a coloured background). Having said that, I wanted to do that in the past, and it didn't seem to work.

On Tue, 2013-06-11 at 21:22 -0400, Doug wrote: > On 06/11/2013 09:00 PM, Joe Zeff wrote: >> On 06/11/2013 05:29 PM, Tim wrote: > >> Agreed. However, it can be argued that if you know enough to do that, >> you should also know enough to be careful with rm. As root, unless I'm >> deleting exactly one file, I use ls first to see exactly what I'm going >> to delete. It's a form of "measure twice, cut once" that's prevented at >> least one disaster over the years. (N.B.: once you've examined the >> results of ls, the safest way to use rm is to use the up arrow to get >> back the preceding command line, then edit it. That's probably the best >> way to be sure that what you delete is what you listed.) > > I find that when you are going to perform some kind of action on a file, > and you have found it using ls -la, highlight the file and ctrl-shift-c. > Then whetever your command is, command ctrl-shift-v. > > That's a better option than command filename-without-last-part* because > there may be two or more identical first part filenames, but different > extensions. The most obvious is filename and filename.bak. Another > common example is a filename with two or more version numbers in the > extensions. > > --doug > > > -- > Blessed are the peacemakers..for they shall be shot at from both sides. > --A.M.Greeley Tip from this list I think If using "su -" regularly add this to /root/.bashrc to obtain the root prompt in red PS1="\[\033[1;31m\][\u@\h:\w]$\[\033[0m\] " John

On 06/11/2013 09:00 PM, Joe Zeff wrote: > On 06/11/2013 05:29 PM, Tim wrote: > Agreed. However, it can be argued that if you know enough to do that, > you should also know enough to be careful with rm. As root, unless I'm > deleting exactly one file, I use ls first to see exactly what I'm going > to delete. It's a form of "measure twice, cut once" that's prevented at > least one disaster over the years. (N.B.: once you've examined the > results of ls, the safest way to use rm is to use the up arrow to get > back the preceding command line, then edit it. That's probably the best > way to be sure that what you delete is what you listed.) I find that when you are going to perform some kind of action on a file, and you have found it using ls -la, highlight the file and ctrl-shift-c. Then whetever your command is, command ctrl-shift-v. That's a better option than command filename-without-last-part* because there may be two or more identical first part filenames, but different extensions. The most obvious is filename and filename.bak. Another common example is a filename with two or more version numbers in the extensions. --doug -- Blessed are the peacemakers..for they shall be shot at from both sides. --A.M.Greeley

On 06/11/2013 05:29 PM, Tim wrote:

Agreed. However, it can be argued that if you know enough to do that, you should also know enough to be careful with rm. As root, unless I'm deleting exactly one file, I use ls first to see exactly what I'm going to delete. It's a form of "measure twice, cut once" that's prevented at least one disaster over the years. (N.B.: once you've examined the results of ls, the safest way to use rm is to use the up arrow to get back the preceding command line, then edit it. That's probably the best way to be sure that what you delete is what you listed.)

Never rely on that, not to mention that there are plenty of other commands that you can foolishly hose a system with. And you may not get that alias if you use one of the alternative shells.

- For both paying attention to the #/$ prompt and CWD display are helpful. That's what I check whenever I switch to a given terminal (also useful to know which machine you're logged into). Arguably there's more potential for confusion if you normally only work in one, because you get more reliant on remembering the state.

On 06/11/2013 01:24 PM, Joe Zeff wrote: > On 06/11/2013 08:01 AM, Steven Stern wrote: >> When you're done with whatever you did and you get distracted then >> return to the computer, you'll probably forget you are logged in as >> root. > > That's why you either log out from root or close the terminal as soon as > you're done doing root stuph. Clearly, you're younger than I or less easily distracted.

I tried putting myself into wheel once when I did a clean install. I found it very off-putting, to say the least, to find that giving the root password when prompted (or so I thought) didn't work because the system was expecting *my* password, not root's. As soon

as I understood what had happened, I removed myself from wheel, so that I could administer both machines in the same way. YMMV, of course, and if you're fairly new to Linux, you might find giving your password instead of root's more intuitive.

things) which shell you were using. Now, I've grown to like it because it means that different people with different needs and/or tastes can all do things the way they like instead of there being One True Way. Using su or sudo is just another example.

On 06/10/2013 08:57 PM, Lingxian Guo wrote: >About installing the plugin of the Adobe Flash Player for Firefox,I know >the file of libflashplayer.so should be copied to >/usr/lib64/mozilla/plugin.By Terminal,after I input the command of sudo >cp libflashplayer.so /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins,the result is username >is not in sudoers folder,this will be reported ： What should I do ? You need to edit the sudoers file. You should find a copy that works and make yours look like that. (Hint: you need to add a line with your user name and the word ALL in it.) You can edit it with any

On 06/11/2013 01:24 PM, Joe Zeff wrote: > On 06/11/2013 08:01 AM, Steven Stern wrote: >> When you're done with whatever you did and you get distracted then >> return to the computer, you'll probably forget you are logged in as >> root. > > That's why you either log out from root or close the terminal as soon as > you're done doing root stuph. Clearly, you're younger than I or less easily distracted.

Once the command finishes, your terminal is left with your unprivileged logon, so there's less chance of serious mistakes happening by accident (e.g. badly wildcarded "rm" commands), if you're going to keep that terminal open.

Allegedly, on or about 10 June 2013, Joe Zeff sent: > To me, sudo is a fine tool if you want to give access to a few admin > tools to people who don't (and shouldn't) know the root password. > However, I can't see the point of using it if you're the person who > installed Linux and created the root password. I can see only two reasons for using sudo when you're the sole computer user and owner: Once the command finishes, your terminal is left with your unprivileged logon, so there's less chance of serious mistakes happening by accident (e.g. badly wildcarded "rm" commands), if you're going to keep that terminal open. Potentially, there should be less chance for something to snaffle up a copy of your root password if you're not typing it. Though I suspect that if there is anything hanging around that could do that, then you're already screwed. And it's not just the potential for issuing dangerous commands in a root terminal, that's a problem. People logged in as root often stay logged in as root, doing things as root when they don't really need to. Then they find that they're painted themselves into a corner, as some files they wanted to use are owned by root, so they log back in as root, yet again, for a really bad reason. That said, I've really only recently made practical use of sudo, and can't say that *I* find it to be a stand-out better thing to do than doing "su -", I still do it either way.

About installing the plugin of the Adobe Flash Player for Firefox,I know the file of libflashplayer.so should be copied to /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugin.

You need to edit the sudoers file. You should find a copy that works and make yours look like that. (Hint: you need to add a line with your user name and the word ALL in it.) You can edit it with any editor, or if you know vi, then you can use visudo. You will have to have admin privileges to do this, so if you can't su to root, you will need to find out how to do that, first.