Yes, good idea, and run that logic on the server side.

Running malware doesn't need any special privileges. Nothing to do with being rooted.

+1

<like>

laffer curve.

Those two things sound pretty cool actually ;-)

Which secret department did you get when you pressed 4 :-) ?

Ok, but law did the 'closer target' break? It's just that if there wasn't a good legal case, there's no good legal reason the police couldn't come and raid my home either, even if I'm not breaking any law. So that makes me feel some empathy with the raidees, making millions doing shady stuff or not.

Grow up.

the video is actually about 'the morality of alturism' (@0:35)..

http://www.bash.org/?104383

i'm interested in (getting into) your line of work. (Scientific/number crunching software.) I'd be grateful if we could chat a little about what you're up to and what it's like. Perhaps you could drop me a line? beng@few.vu.nl.

I think the only significant benefit to sudo is that you can give users root access, without giving the root password, and take it away again without changing the root password.

It's more sensible way of authenticating: authenticate with your own password, authorize (or not) with sudo. authentication != authorization.

That said, I don't mind su for a system with very few root users and always use sudo as 'sudo -s' :).

As sibling said, that starts a *new* process as neil, your old root shell is still there.

For the scenario you describe, exit your root shell to get back to neil, or use 'suspend' if your shell supports it so you can 'fg' back to root if you want.

You're missing the point - writing them is the easy part. If the problem is suitable. It's just too easy to get into an unmaintainable mess.