More PATH fallout. Who decided this was a good idea?

[Callum Lerwick]

On Sat, 2008-12-06 at 14:08 -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> A not too difficult compromise would be a bash completion plugin which
> knows when the command starts with "sudo" to complete these kinds of
> binaries.

Well the point is I want to execute these commands *without* sudo.

> One could also argue that since sudo isn't the default, it can't have
> a strong influence on how the OS works.  (I do personally wish sudo
> *was* the default though)

There was an argument about this a while back. One side argues that sudo
provides no additional security thus should not be default, the other
side (well, me at least) argues that sudo adds convenience and helps
reduce foot-shooting. Which is why I'm in the habit of running admin
commands to get the help page as non-root. My foot has some ugly
scars... :)

I'm inclined to agree sudo doesn't necessarily add security. But sudo is
*in* the distro, and it's clear a lot of people use it. Just because
it's not default does not mean its usage does not deserve consideration.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20081206/0c7abab9/attachment.sig>