> On 22/04/2008, Tim <ignored_mailbox@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> There's a reason that ordinary users don't include /sbin: There can be >> commands in /bin and /sbin with the same command name, but to do >> slightly different roles. The root user will use the first one if >> finds, the one in /sbin, which may allow them to do more than what an >> ordinary user can do with the /bin command. > > We really ought to fix that :o) the issue is one of ordering more than > actual inclusion in the path, i.e. the order should for /bin,/sbin > (for each of /usr/local, /usr, /) for users and /sbin,/bin (likewise) > for root. IMO, the proper fix should be to have one version of the command, in one location. If there are functions that require root privileges to run, and the user running the command is not root, then have the command pop up a message indicating that the specified option(s) require root privileges. This is standard in a lot of apps and commands...why shouldn't it be so for base OS commands? -- Mike Burger http://www.bubbanfriends.org Visit the Dog Pound II BBS telnet://dogpound2.citadel.org or http://dogpound2.citadel.org To be notified of updates to the web site, visit: https://www.bubbanfriends.org/mailman/listinfo/site-update or send a blank email message to: site-update-subscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
