• courval@lemmy.world
      0·
      11 hours ago

      How dare you using a 21st century terminal editor that keeps you sane? You’re supposed to learn a whole new set of archaic key bindings! And suffer!

  • bitchkat@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    16 hours ago

    Had an idiot “fix” a permission problem by running “sudo chmod -R 777 /”

    And that is why sudo privileges were removed for the vast majority of people.

    • mlg@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      3 hours ago

      Shared this before, but someone I know did a chmod on /bin which nuked all the SUID/GUID bits which borked the system lol.

      Surpsingly easy enough to undo by getting a list of the correct perms from a working system, but hilarious nonetheless

    • MTK@lemmy.world
      0·
      10 hours ago

      seems reasonable to me, root is just a made up concept and the human owns the machine.

    • bigbuckalex@lemmy.zip
      0·
      13 hours ago

      Oh… That sounds like a nightmare. How do you even fix that? There’s no “revert the entire filesystem’s permissions to default” button that I’m aware of

      • justme@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        0·
        13 hours ago

        If you are lucky your system is atomic or has other roll back feature. Otherwise it’s reinstall time.

        I guess you could set up a fresh system, run a script that goes through each folder checking the permission and setting it on the target system.

  • xia@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
    0·
    22 hours ago

    Getting flashbacks of me trying to explain to a mac user why using sudo “to make it work” is why he had a growing problem of needing to use sudo… (more and more files owned by root in his home folder).

    • InnerScientist@lemmy.world
      0·
      19 hours ago

      Sounds like a problem fixing itself, at some point MacOS is going to have problems if it can’t edit a config is my guess.

  • Sixty@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    0·
    1 day ago

    sudo dolphin

    Then I act like a Windows user and go there via the GUI because I didn’t feel like learning how to use nano.

    • bishbosh@lemm.eeEnglish
      0·
      22 hours ago

      If you’re running dolphin as sudo and open like a text file in an editor, does it edit the file with sudo?

      • tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
        0·
        22 hours ago

        When you run a process under sudo, it will be running as the root user. Processes that that process launches will also be running as the root user; new processes run as the same user as their parent process.

        So internally, no, it won’t result in another invocation of sudo. But those processes a dolphin process running as root starts will be running as the root user, same as if you had individually invoked them via sudo.

  • aesthelete@lemmy.world
    0·
    1 day ago

    This is definitely the way for configuration files that you shouldn’t change permissions or ownership on but only want to modify a few times.

    However, I find chmod easier to use without reference by using the ugoa (+/-) rwxXst syntax rather than the numbers.

  • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
    0·
    1 day ago

    why tho?

    If it’s a file I have to modify once why would I run:

    sudo chmod 774 file.conf

    sudo chown myuser:myuser file.conf

    vi file.conf

    sudo chown root:root file.conf

    sudo chmod 644 file.conf

    instead of:

    sudo vi file.conf

    1000001464

    • Korthrun@lemmy.sdf.org
      0·
      24 hours ago

      Inane. Intentionally convoluted, or someone following the absolute worst tutorials without bothering to understand anything about what they’re reading.

      I have questions:

      • Why are your configurations world readable?
      • Why are you setting the executable bit on a .conf file?
      • Why change the files group alongside the owner when you’ve just given the owner rxw and you’re going to set it back?
      • If it was 644 before, why 774?
      • Why even change the mode if you’re going to change the ownership?
      • Why do you want roots vimrc instead of your users
      • Why do you hate sudoedit
      • Why go out of your way to make this appear more convoluted than it actually is?

      Even jokey comments can lead to people copying bad habits if it’s not clear they’re jokes.

      This was a joke right? I was baited by your trolling?

  • SleepyPie@lemmy.world
    0·
    1 day ago

    If it’s all my system should I really care about chown and chmod? Is the point that automatic processes with user names like www-data have to make edits, and need permission to do so, and that’s it?

    Newish Linux user btw

    • palordrolap@fedia.io
      0·
      1 day ago

      In addition to corsicanguppy’s comment, some — often important — programs actually expect the system to be secured in a particular way and will refuse to function if things don’t look right.

      Now, you’d be right to expect that closing down permissions too tightly could break a system, but people have actually broken their systems by setting permissions too openly on the wrong things as well.

      That said, for general, everyday use, those commands don’t need to be used much, and there might even be a way to do what they do from your chosen GUI. Even so, it nice to know they’re there and what they do for those rare occasions when they might be needed.

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.caEnglish
      0·
      1 day ago

      Short answer: yes.

      One of the tenets of security is that a user or process should have only enough access to do what it needs, and then no more. So your web server, your user account, to your mail server, should have exactly what they need, and usually that’s been intricately planned by the distro.

      If you subvert it you could be writing files as root that www-data now can’t read or write. This kind of error is sometimes obvious and sometimes very subtle.

      Especially if you’re new to this different access model, tread carefully.

      Great news! If you need it up, many distros are really great at allowing you cm to compare permissions and reset them. The bad news is that maybe you’re not on one of those. But you could be okay.

  • juipeltje@lemmy.world
    0·
    1 day ago

    I’m not sure if that’s the joke and it flew over my head but isn’t editing with sudo what you should be doing anyway if it’s a system level file? You shouldn’t change permissions unless the file is actually supposed to be owned by your user.

    • anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      0·
      12 hours ago

      You are supposed to run sudoedit.
      This command creates a temporary copy, opens it in you editor of choice and overwrites the protected file when the temp file changes.
      That way the editor doesn’t run as root.
      You can see the difference if you run shell command, like whoami, in vim.

  • hddsx@lemmy.ca
    0·
    1 day ago

    Sorry, user babe is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported