From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Jun 6 17:13:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA20687 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 6 Jun 1997 17:13:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ethanol.gnu.ai.mit.edu (we-refuse-to-spy-on-our-users@ethanol.gnu.ai.mit.edu [128.52.46.64]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA20680 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 1997 17:13:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ethanol.gnu.ai.mit.edu (8.8.5/8.6.12GNU) id UAA01510; Fri, 6 Jun 1997 20:13:20 -0400 Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 20:13:20 -0400 Message-Id: <199706070013.UAA01510@ethanol.gnu.ai.mit.edu> To: spork@super-g.com CC: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org In-reply-to: (message from spork on Fri, 6 Jun 1997 15:59:41 +0000 (GMT)) Subject: Re: tty_snoop: why check uid? From: Joel Ray Holveck Reply-to: joelh@gnu.ai.mit.edu Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk I'm familiar with 'sudo'. I just find it inconvenient. On the machines in question, there is no root password. The machines are exclusively used for development, and have no outside connections, so ease-of-use is the order instead of security. That's why I prefer to set permissions as I see fit, instead of having artificial permission-setting in device drivers. Happy hacking, joelh -- http://www.wp.com/piquan --- Joel Ray Holveck --- joelh@gnu.ai.mit.edu All my opinions are my own, not the Free Software Foundation's. Second law of programming: Anything that can go wrong wi sendmail: segmentation violation -- core dumped