On Thursday 09 February 2006 11:48, Per Kustemo wrote:

On 2/9/06, Ken Schneider wrote:

...

sux program followed by the root password.

Is the sux program already installed and how do I use it. Tried to install it with apt-get install sux but it seems to be the wrong way cause I got this msg "Couldn't find package sux" /Per

Hi Per, "sux" is already installed on your system. It's a core utility. In a shell, "sux --help" tells a little (stress "little") more. Ken's instructions were telling you to manually launch your program from a shell, as root, using sux: "sux {program-name} {root password}" hth & regards, Carl

What is wrong with YAST? Have you tried that? On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Per Kustemo wrote:

On 2/9/06, Ken Schneider wrote:

...

On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 12:47 +0100, Per Kustemo wrote:

...

What is the crrect way to install updates on already installed program. I updated the Azureus today and as a common user I have no right to update that program. The update function in the program works fine an downloads the update to the tmp dir but when it tries to update it fails, cause of my rights in the filesystem of course. My question is. Is there a way to like in windows to "run as" admin or in this case root on a single program? Or is there another easy way? I have fixed this logged in as root but still would like to know the correct way :)....sux

Yes there is:

sux program followed by the root password.

Is the sux program already installed and how do I use it. Tried to install it with apt-get install sux but it seems to be the wrong way cause I got this msg "Couldn't find package sux" /Per

...

-- Ken Schneider UNIX since 1989, linux since 1994, SuSE since 1998

-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

On Thursday 09 February 2006 13:23, columbo wrote:

Per,

As Carl noted, it is already in the system but, just for your info, I think you can only use the function within run level 5, the auto X login - ?DM, as opposed to run level 3 which leaves you at a prompt prior to logging into X if that is what you choose to do.

Hmmmmm.....I think I posted somewhat bogus information. Looks like you can use 'sux' in SUSE 9.3 and, maybe, later versions within run level 3. Since I couldn't use it in SUSE 9.2 or prior within run level 3 I assumed.....yeah, yeah, I know. :) regards, columbo -- SUSE 9.3 Pro - KDE 3.5 I can understand why some Muslims were incensed when they saw the cartoon of Mohammed with the bomb on his head. The proper way to carry a bomb is strapped around your body.

Thanks alot all of you for the advice :).... Will take a closer look at this. /Per On 2/10/06, Fergus Wilde wrote:

On Thursday 09 February 2006 16:48, Per Kustemo wrote:

...

On 2/9/06, Ken Schneider wrote:

...

On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 12:47 +0100, Per Kustemo wrote:

...

What is the crrect way to install updates on already installed program. I updated the Azureus today and as a common user I have no right to update that program. The update function in the program works fine an downloads the update to the tmp dir but when it tries to update it fails, cause of my rights in the filesystem of course. My question is. Is there a way to like in windows to "run as" admin or in this case root on a single program? Or is there another easy way? I have fixed this logged in as root but still would like to know the correct way :)....sux

Yes there is:

sux program followed by the root password.

Is the sux program already installed and how do I use it. Tried to install it with apt-get install sux but it seems to be the wrong way cause I got this msg "Couldn't find package sux" /Per

It will be installed already. sux is a Suse method of invoking su so as to get you a root shell that's able to use the X window system. Have a careful look at man su and info su to see the details of what sux is based on. You'll see there are various clever aspects to the whole thing.

Good luck Fergus

...

...

-- Ken Schneider UNIX since 1989, linux since 1994, SuSE since 1998

-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

-- Fergus Wilde Chetham's Library Long Millgate Manchester M3 1SB

Tel: 0161 834 7961 Fax: 0161 839 5797

http://www.chethams.org.uk

-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 17:07 -0600, Greg Wallace wrote:

On Thursday, February 09, 2006 @ 10:13 AM, Ken Schneider wrote:

Ken: I have always used plain old su instead of sux. I know that sux is supposedly su but new and improved. Are there any reasons not to simply start using sux where you used to use su? From an article I found on the web, it said --

"'sux user' and 'sux - user' behave just like su but transfer $DISPLAY and the X cookies."

as well as mentioning a few other differences that went a bit over my head. In general (I know there are always exceptions) are there any reasons why you would not want to generally use sux instead of just su?

You use sux when you need to run a program as root that also needs access to "x" resources. Nothing more nothing less. You use su when you need to run cli programs. This isn't rocket science. :-) -- Ken Schneider UNIX since 1989, linux since 1994, SuSE since 1998

On Friday 10 February 2006 08:16, kai wrote:

Wow, hadn't heard of that before. What a command! Now we have...

touch, finger, mount, fsck, sux, unmount, sleep  (not necessarily in that rapid succession)

Prior to those, shouldn't there be.... date, nice, wine, head, tail And afterwards.... more or whois -- SUSE 9.3 Pro - KDE 3.5

Bryan, On Thursday 09 February 2006 20:44, Bryan S. Tyson wrote:

On Thursday 09 February 2006 6:07 pm, Greg Wallace wrote:

...

I have always used plain old su instead of sux.

Su is fine for things running in a terminal. For a graphical program, if you su then try to launch an x program it will complain something about xhost access denied.

One way to get around this is the xhost + command, but some consider this unsafe because it disables access control in the X server. Instead you can use sux.

Using "xhost +local:" is fairly safe, especially for a personal computer. Before SuSE 10 (or was it before 9.3?) you had to use sux or adjust the X server access control. Now you can just use su.

Bryan

Randall Schulz

On Thursday, February 09, 2006 @ 10:56 PM, Randall Schulz wrote:

Bryan,

On Thursday 09 February 2006 20:44, Bryan S. Tyson wrote:

...

On Thursday 09 February 2006 6:07 pm, Greg Wallace wrote:

...

I have always used plain old su instead of sux.

Su is fine for things running in a terminal. For a graphical program, if you su then try to launch an x program it will complain something about xhost access denied.

One way to get around this is the xhost + command, but some consider this unsafe because it disables access control in the X server. Instead you can use sux.

Using "xhost +local:" is fairly safe, especially for a personal computer.

Before SuSE 10 (or was it before 9.3?) you had to use sux or adjust the X server access control. Now you can just use su.

So you're saying that in SuSE 10, and maybe 9.3, you can now use su interchangeably with sux, or am I reading too much into your statement?

...

Bryan

Randall Schulz

Thanks, Greg Wallace

On Friday 10 February 2006 20:54, Greg Wallace wrote:

So you're saying that in SuSE 10, and maybe 9.3, you can now use su interchangeably with sux, or am I reading too much into your statement?

In 10.0, pam_xauth was introduced to handle the X cookie stuff that was previously handled by the sux shell script, so now it's totally transparent

Anders, On Friday 10 February 2006 18:34, Anders Johansson wrote:

On Friday 10 February 2006 05:55, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

Using "xhost +local:" is fairly safe, especially for a personal computer.

Only if you totally trust everything running on your machine.

Well, I didn't say run like that indefinitely. Just relax the restriction, start the process and when you're done, retract it. But if I'm running untrustworthy softare, all bets are off anyway, no? Like I said, it's a personal computer. I'm the only user. The large majority of the processes that run here are either root or me. Those that are neither, yes I trust them. Postgres, Apache 2, Perforce, NTPD and a very few others.

If a program can connect to your X server, it can sniff your keyboard. Do you want a hacker getting in through a hole in a service as user nobody to be able to sniff your passwords?

And this hole? Where is it? How does the hacker know when I've relaxed the X access permissions? I've gotta say, this fear everything unknown all the time attitude does not presuade me. That's the excuse always given to make our network at work progressively more useless. You ask them what they're guarding against and they say "the unknown." Bah. Nothing is certain. Randall Schulz