It’s a really important switch for doing things like setting up wireguard, which has protected directories, you can’t actually enter the directory for wireguard setup without sudo -i
(I mean technically you probably can with sudo su, too, but this is more elegant and less redundant)
Does that1 security no-no matter on a single-user system which (almost) never leaves the sight of said user? Or is that just a matter of ‘don’t do this on a server’?
What’s the problem exactly? There are many ways to do it, and I think saying you run apt-getupdate is quite fine even if you’re not explicitly saying that you run it as root. And he may not have flatpaks.
Um… shouldn’t it be:
sudo su; apt-get update; flatpak update;Or am I missing something?
Use sudo -i instead, gives you an interactive shell without running the su binary with sudo, which is unnecessary
Edit: it’s i not I
Thank you, that’s a switch I hadn’t looked at. I’ll admit though, I’m on Mint, I have a nice built-in GUI that works nicely.
It’s a really important switch for doing things like setting up wireguard, which has protected directories, you can’t actually enter the directory for wireguard setup without
sudo -i(I mean technically you probably can with
sudo su, too, but this is more elegant and less redundant)My phones keyboard decided to capitalize, it’s -i
Thanks, we suffered the same fate.
deleted by creator
Does that1 security no-no matter on a single-user system which (almost) never leaves the sight of said user? Or is that just a matter of ‘don’t do this on a server’?
deleted by creator
Sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get (-y if you want it to do it automatically) upgrade
There’s also
sudo apt updateif you only want to apply the superuser permission one specific command instead of a lot of commands
What’s the problem exactly? There are many ways to do it, and I think saying you run
apt-get updateis quite fine even if you’re not explicitly saying that you run it as root. And he may not have flatpaks.