Skip to main content

sudo = Stupid Utility, Distinct Overkill

I think XKCD said it best...

"Make me a sandwich."

"What? Make it yourself."

"sudo make me a sandwich"

"ok"

The UNIX OS was originally designed to run on computers that many people would use and in those situations you don't want every Tom, Dick and Janie installing stuff that could break a shared computer. However, on desktop Linux (which one person normally uses) , sudo is kind of useless. Why not just prompt for the user password without sudo (if root access is needed to install or change modifications)?

I guess sudo IS easier than logging out and then logging in again as root, but it's annoying (especially if you give your normal user permission to administer the system). It almost becomes a point of politeness (in which the word please would make much more sense). Instead of sudo apt-get install ruby you could just ask please install ruby. No wonder people think techies speak their own language. You are probably saying please out loud to your computer anyways when it doesn't work. I know I was when I was having trouble configuring the microphone for use with Skype.

Skype: Hello, welcome to Skype call testing service. After the beep, please record a message.

Me: Please please please work! I don't want to have to go back to Windows!

Ah yes, Windows. As bad as sudo is, it will never be as bad as Vista's User Account Control.

That's still no excuse though...

Comments

Anonymous said…
The way sudo is used today defeats the purpose of even having sudo. Sudo is for those situations where there's a program that only works as root, but users should only be able to give it certain command line options. For example, you could use it to allow users to bring ppp0 up and down, while not allowing them to touch eth0 or lo.

With today's use of sudo in certain popular distributions of Linux, you might as well just let the normal user account be root. Perhaps sudo is only being used because there are a lot of desktop apps that refuse to run as root.

Popular posts from this blog

Freezing Gems

What is a gem and why would you want to freeze it?

In Ruby, there are times when you want to access pieces of functionality that other people of written (3rd party libraries) and you normally have 2 options. You can install a plug in or install a gem. Normally the method you use is determined by which ever is made available by the author.

Gems are installed on the host machine and are pretty handy when you want to run things in the command line or else across lots of projects, but their downside is that if you use a gem in a Rails project there is no automatic publishing mechanism when you deploy your site. You will need to log onto the remote host machine and install the gem manually.

Plugins are specific to Rails and are similar to gems in that they are also 3rd party libraries. However they are associated with your Rails project as opposed to your machine so they will get posted to the server on a regular deploy.

Freezing a gem is the process of transforming a gem into a plug in. Essen…

Comparing Rails' Active Record Pattern with Phoenix/Elixir/Ecto

Rails has a very well established Active Record pattern for dealing with the database. You have an Active Record model which maps to the database table, the schema of the model comes directly from the database schema and you place your model specific methods on the Active Record model. This file is also where you set your model relationships (e.g. has_many, has_one, belongs_to). Your instance of the model has all the methods built in.

In Ecto/Phoenix it's a little different. First of all, the database schema doesn't automatically map to the "model". In fact we don't really have models (as Elixir is a functional paradigm). What happens in one file in Rails, happens in essentially two (or more). You have a schema file (where you have to list out all the attributes and relationships). Using the schema file, your "instance" is essentially a data structure (with no methods on it). If you want to transform the data on your struct, you would use a context modu…

Unit/Functional Testing RubyAMF

One of my current projects is using RubyAMF to communicate with Flash (http://rubyforge.org/projects/rubyamf/). On the whole this is really nice because it allows you to transfer Ruby objects directly to ActionScript ones (as opposed to translating the object into XML, sending the XML and then recreating the object in ActionScript).
However, Rails does not provide a built in transport mechanism for AMF, so we cannot run functional testing directly on the data call (as we could for an XML or HTML transport layer). This is a show stopper for a lot of people (Rails w/o Unit testing = a big mess of trouble when something goes wrong).
We can though serve both the HTML and the AMF formats depending on the request format. This means that we can test the object instantiation logic and make sure there are no errors in the controllers (though we cannot check the actual format of the data being served). In the controller, instead of rendering AMF alone, do the following respond_to do |format|