Why GNU su does not support the `wheel' group (2002)
1–10 of 150 posts
Re: Why GNU su does not support the `wheel' group (2002)
#2Reaction: Mr. Stallman's idyllic worldview does not seem to admit that someone may actually own the computer system in question, or otherwise have legal rights to set limits on who uses the system, when, and for what purposes.
And what was allowed by the social norms of the tiny 1980's *nix computing world, or what you can get away with when you're as famous as Mr. Stallman...those may not translate well to other contexts.
Re: Why GNU su does not support the `wheel' group (2002)
#3It shows how old is that, and how things changed.
Back in the day, it was about multiple OS users on one big machine, maintained by a university or a corporation.
Now I'm the only human user of my several machines. I have more than one interactive user account on some of them. I put these accounts to the wheel group, to avoid ever using a root password. (Void Linux has it pre-configured in /etc/sudoers.)
Re: Why GNU su does not support the `wheel' group (2002)
#4Reaction: Mr. Stallman's idyllic worldview does not seem to admit that someone may actually own the computer system in question, or otherwise have legal rights to set limits on who uses the system, when, and for what purposes. And what was allowed by the social norms of the tiny 1980's *nix computing world, or what you can get away with when you're as famous as Mr. Stallman...those may not translate well to other con…
I can’t stand his holier than thou writing. No amount of brilliance or clever code makes someone less of an asshole.
Re: Why GNU su does not support the `wheel' group (2002)
#5What a great example of how slavish devotion to an ideology makes idiots out of smart people.
Re: Why GNU su does not support the `wheel' group (2002)
#6I read the page and don't understand what's going on. What is special about the 'wheel' group and what is su even "checking" in the first place? Isn't it just supposed to switch user? And what are the implications of not-checking whatever it was supposed to check? And I also don't get: if someone has the root password, can't they change what groups they're a member of?
Re: Why GNU su does not support the `wheel' group (2002)
#7Reaction: Mr. Stallman's idyllic worldview does not seem to admit that someone may actually own the computer system in question, or otherwise have legal rights to set limits on who uses the system, when, and for what purposes. And what was allowed by the social norms of the tiny 1980's *nix computing world, or what you can get away with when you're as famous as Mr. Stallman...those may not translate well to other con…
legal rights? "I'm on the side of the masses, not that of the rulers." He is pretty clear...
Re: Why GNU su does not support the `wheel' group (2002)
#8Reaction: Mr. Stallman's idyllic worldview does not seem to admit that someone may actually own the computer system in question, or otherwise have legal rights to set limits on who uses the system, when, and for what purposes. And what was allowed by the social norms of the tiny 1980's *nix computing world, or what you can get away with when you're as famous as Mr. Stallman...those may not translate well to other con…
> If you are used to supporting the bosses and sysadmins in whatever they do, you might find this idea strange at first.
Should this be that far-fetched though? That employees might not be simple thralls of the capitalist, whose agency extends only as far as his master permits?
It reminds me of something I'd read that one of the reasons modern capitalism is so borked is because the founding fathers weren't conceiving of things like "Amazon" existing, where one entity employs a staggeringly large number of employees. Or that a small number of companies would employ such a large percentage of workers.
Their worldview was that where most people were "self-employed" - and if they weren't, employers were small and had a few or tens of employees at most. Or it was a matter of master and apprentices where both groups were investing heavily in each other in a trade and in the running of a shop.
So, while yes our current system finds it a matter of course that employees are utterly subject to the whims of their employer and the legal and economic system fully supports them in this, does it have to be that way?
(I know you can go be a contractor, but good luck with health insurance and etc etc etc all the other things that being yoked to an employer brings that I wish were just public taxpayer-funded services).
Re: Why GNU su does not support the `wheel' group (2002)
#9There are little (to no?) situations where su has a good reason to check wheel.
You either have the password, or you don't have it. But not something in-between.
Outside of any ideology, in a scenario where you use su to become root, it's a very odd choice to link the wheel group to su; because if you know the password to the "root" user, and you have physical or remote access to the computer, you can likely just login as root.
And if you can't, then it means you actually needed sudo su, not su.
Those who actually need to be root, usually use sudo instead of su.
In the other cases, if you just need to switch user, then no point at all to refer to wheel
Re: Why GNU su does not support the `wheel' group (2002)
#10I read the page and don't understand what's going on. What is special about the 'wheel' group and what is su even "checking" in the first place? Isn't it just supposed to switch user? And what are the implications of not-checking whatever it was supposed to check? And I also don't get: if someone has the root password, can't they change what groups they're a member of?
Basically, su vs sudo. Do you want any user to be able to become root, if they know the root password? Or do you want more control over the process?