What are the differences between “su”, “sudo -s”, “sudo -i”, “sudo su”?












138















I already read it from manual but I can't see difference..



su - change user ID or become superuser



sudo -s [command]


The -s (shell) option runs the shell specified by the SHELL environment variable if it is set or the shell as specified in passwd(5). If a
command is specified, it is passed to the shell for execution. Otherwise, an interactive shell is executed.



sudo -i disappear description in manual










share|improve this question




















  • 6





    Also, do not use su user to login from untrusted shells, but su - user. See unix.stackexchange.com/q/7013/8250

    – Lekensteyn
    Oct 22 '11 at 8:45











  • @Lekensteyn wow, great example. thx for the LOL :)

    – törzsmókus
    Jan 30 '15 at 15:11






  • 1





    always remember the old commandment: thou shalt not claim root's name in vain!

    – törzsmókus
    Jan 30 '15 at 15:11













  • Not saying sudo -i is bad, but you can certainly f*** things up using it

    – Kolob Canyon
    Nov 15 '16 at 22:06













  • Near-duplicate: askubuntu.com/questions/376199/…

    – Reinier Post
    Jun 6 '17 at 9:59
















138















I already read it from manual but I can't see difference..



su - change user ID or become superuser



sudo -s [command]


The -s (shell) option runs the shell specified by the SHELL environment variable if it is set or the shell as specified in passwd(5). If a
command is specified, it is passed to the shell for execution. Otherwise, an interactive shell is executed.



sudo -i disappear description in manual










share|improve this question




















  • 6





    Also, do not use su user to login from untrusted shells, but su - user. See unix.stackexchange.com/q/7013/8250

    – Lekensteyn
    Oct 22 '11 at 8:45











  • @Lekensteyn wow, great example. thx for the LOL :)

    – törzsmókus
    Jan 30 '15 at 15:11






  • 1





    always remember the old commandment: thou shalt not claim root's name in vain!

    – törzsmókus
    Jan 30 '15 at 15:11













  • Not saying sudo -i is bad, but you can certainly f*** things up using it

    – Kolob Canyon
    Nov 15 '16 at 22:06













  • Near-duplicate: askubuntu.com/questions/376199/…

    – Reinier Post
    Jun 6 '17 at 9:59














138












138








138


85






I already read it from manual but I can't see difference..



su - change user ID or become superuser



sudo -s [command]


The -s (shell) option runs the shell specified by the SHELL environment variable if it is set or the shell as specified in passwd(5). If a
command is specified, it is passed to the shell for execution. Otherwise, an interactive shell is executed.



sudo -i disappear description in manual










share|improve this question
















I already read it from manual but I can't see difference..



su - change user ID or become superuser



sudo -s [command]


The -s (shell) option runs the shell specified by the SHELL environment variable if it is set or the shell as specified in passwd(5). If a
command is specified, it is passed to the shell for execution. Otherwise, an interactive shell is executed.



sudo -i disappear description in manual







sudo su






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited May 8 '15 at 7:57









muru

1




1










asked Oct 22 '11 at 6:11









Smile.HunterSmile.Hunter

2,96092530




2,96092530








  • 6





    Also, do not use su user to login from untrusted shells, but su - user. See unix.stackexchange.com/q/7013/8250

    – Lekensteyn
    Oct 22 '11 at 8:45











  • @Lekensteyn wow, great example. thx for the LOL :)

    – törzsmókus
    Jan 30 '15 at 15:11






  • 1





    always remember the old commandment: thou shalt not claim root's name in vain!

    – törzsmókus
    Jan 30 '15 at 15:11













  • Not saying sudo -i is bad, but you can certainly f*** things up using it

    – Kolob Canyon
    Nov 15 '16 at 22:06













  • Near-duplicate: askubuntu.com/questions/376199/…

    – Reinier Post
    Jun 6 '17 at 9:59














  • 6





    Also, do not use su user to login from untrusted shells, but su - user. See unix.stackexchange.com/q/7013/8250

    – Lekensteyn
    Oct 22 '11 at 8:45











  • @Lekensteyn wow, great example. thx for the LOL :)

    – törzsmókus
    Jan 30 '15 at 15:11






  • 1





    always remember the old commandment: thou shalt not claim root's name in vain!

    – törzsmókus
    Jan 30 '15 at 15:11













  • Not saying sudo -i is bad, but you can certainly f*** things up using it

    – Kolob Canyon
    Nov 15 '16 at 22:06













  • Near-duplicate: askubuntu.com/questions/376199/…

    – Reinier Post
    Jun 6 '17 at 9:59








6




6





Also, do not use su user to login from untrusted shells, but su - user. See unix.stackexchange.com/q/7013/8250

– Lekensteyn
Oct 22 '11 at 8:45





Also, do not use su user to login from untrusted shells, but su - user. See unix.stackexchange.com/q/7013/8250

– Lekensteyn
Oct 22 '11 at 8:45













@Lekensteyn wow, great example. thx for the LOL :)

– törzsmókus
Jan 30 '15 at 15:11





@Lekensteyn wow, great example. thx for the LOL :)

– törzsmókus
Jan 30 '15 at 15:11




1




1





always remember the old commandment: thou shalt not claim root's name in vain!

– törzsmókus
Jan 30 '15 at 15:11







always remember the old commandment: thou shalt not claim root's name in vain!

– törzsmókus
Jan 30 '15 at 15:11















Not saying sudo -i is bad, but you can certainly f*** things up using it

– Kolob Canyon
Nov 15 '16 at 22:06







Not saying sudo -i is bad, but you can certainly f*** things up using it

– Kolob Canyon
Nov 15 '16 at 22:06















Near-duplicate: askubuntu.com/questions/376199/…

– Reinier Post
Jun 6 '17 at 9:59





Near-duplicate: askubuntu.com/questions/376199/…

– Reinier Post
Jun 6 '17 at 9:59










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















114














The main difference between these commands is in the way they restrict access to their functions.



su (which means "substitute user" or "switch user") - does exactly that, it starts another shell instance with privileges of the target user. To ensure you have the rights to do that, it asks you for the password of the target user. So, to become root, you need to know root password. If there are several users on your machine who need to run commands as root, they all need to know root password - note that it'll be the same password. If you need to revoke admin permissions from one of the users, you need to change root password and tell it only to those people who need to keep access - messy.



sudo (hmm... what's the mnemonic? Super-User-DO?) is completely different. It uses a config file (/etc/sudoers) which lists which users have rights to specific actions (run commands as root, etc.) When invoked, it asks for the password of the user who started it - to ensure the person at the terminal is really the same "joe" who's listed in /etc/sudoers. To revoke admin privileges from a person, you just need to edit the config file (or remove the user from a group which is listed in that config). This results in much cleaner management of privileges.



As a result of this, in many Debian-based systems root user has no password set - i.e. it's not possible to login as root directly.



Also, /etc/sudoers allows to specify some additional options - i.e. user X is only able to run program Y etc.



The often-used sudo su combination works as follows: first sudo asks you for your password, and, if you're allowed to do so, invokes the next command (su) as a super-user. Because su is invoked by root, it does not require you to enter the target user's password. So, sudo su allows you to open a shell as another user (including root), if you're allowed super-user access by the /etc/sudoers file.






share|improve this answer





















  • 2





    I've never seen su as "switch user", but always as superuser; the default behavior without another's user name (though it makes sense). From wikipedia : "The su command, also referred to as super user[1] as early as 1974, has also been called "substitute user", "spoof user" or "set user" because it allows changing the account associated with the current terminal (window)."

    – dr jimbob
    Oct 22 '11 at 13:47






  • 4





    @dr jimbob: you're right, but I'm finding that "switch user" is kinda describes better what it does - though historically it stands for "super user". I'm also delighted to find that the wikipedia article is very similar to my answer - I never saw the article before :)

    – Sergey
    Oct 22 '11 at 20:33








  • 11





    The official meaning of "su" is "substitute user". See: "man su".

    – Angel O'Sphere
    Nov 26 '13 at 13:02






  • 1





    @AngelO'Sphere: Interestingly, Ubuntu's manpage does not mention "substitute" at all. The manpage at gnu.org (gnu.org/software/coreutils/manual/html_node/su-invocation.html) does indeed say "su: Run a command with substitute user and group ID". I think gnu.org is a canonical source :)

    – Sergey
    Nov 26 '13 at 20:25






  • 1





    What about sudo su?

    – Kaz Wolfe
    Oct 15 '14 at 8:14



















52














sudo lets you run commands in your own user account with root privileges. su lets you switch user so that you're actually logged in as root.



sudo -s runs a shell with root privileges. sudo -i also acquires the root user's environment.



To see the difference between su and sudo -s, do cd ~ and then pwd after each of them. In the first case, you'll be in root's home directory, because you're root. In the second case, you'll be in your own home directory, because you're yourself with root privileges.



There's more discussion of this exact question here.






share|improve this answer



















  • 19





    "you're yourself with root privileges" is not what's actually happening :) Actually, it's not possible to be "yourself with root privileges" - either you're root or you're yourself. Try typing whoami in both cases. The fact that cd ~ results are different is a result of sudo -s not setting $HOME environment variable.

    – Sergey
    Oct 22 '11 at 7:28






  • 1





    @Sergey, whoami it says are 'root' because you are running the 'whoami' cmd as though you sudoed it, so temporarily (for the duration of that command) you appear to be the root user, but you might still not have full root access according to the sudoers file.

    – Octopus
    Feb 6 '15 at 22:15








  • 1





    @Octopus: what I was trying to say is that in Unix, a process can only have one UID, and that UID determines the permissions of the process. You can't be "yourself with root privileges", a program either runs with your UID or with root's UID (0).

    – Sergey
    Feb 6 '15 at 22:24






  • 5





    Regarding "you might still not have full root access according to the sudoers file": the sudoers file controls who can run which command as another user, but that happens before the command is executed. However, once you were allowed to start a process as, say, root - the running process has root's UID and has a full access to the system, there's no way for sudo to restrict that. Again, you're always either yourself or root, there's no "half-n-half". So, if sudoers file allows you to run shell as root - permissions in that shell would be indistinguishable from a "normal" root shell.

    – Sergey
    Feb 6 '15 at 22:32





















33














This answer is a dupe of my answer on a dupe of this question, put here on the canonical answer so that people can find it!



The major difference between sudo -i and sudo -s is:





  • sudo -i gives you the root environment, i.e. your ~/.bashrc is ignored.


  • sudo -s gives you the user's environment, so your ~/.bashrc is respected.


Here is an example, you can see that I have an application lsl in my ~/.bin/ directory which is accessible via sudo -s but not accessible with sudo -i. Note also that the Bash prompt changes as will with sudo -i but not with sudo -s:



dotancohen@melancholy:~$ ls .bin
lsl

dotancohen@melancholy:~$ which lsl
/home/dotancohen/.bin/lsl

dotancohen@melancholy:~$ sudo -i

root@melancholy:~# which lsl

root@melancholy:~# exit
logout

dotancohen@melancholy:~$ sudo -s
Sourced .bashrc

dotancohen@melancholy:~$ which lsl
/home/dotancohen/.bin/lsl

dotancohen@melancholy:~$ exit
exit


Though sudo -s is convenient for giving you the environment that you are familiar with, I recommend the use of sudo -i for two reasons:




  1. The visual reminder that you are in a 'root' session.

  2. The root environment is far less likely to be poisoned with malware, such as a rogue line in .bashrc.






share|improve this answer


























  • I noticed sudo -s doesnt seem to process /etc/profile , or anything I have in /etc/profile.d/ .. any idea why?

    – meffect
    Feb 23 '17 at 5:21











  • @dotancohen - What do you mean by sudo -s provides an environment that a user is familiar with?

    – Motivated
    Jan 16 at 19:18











  • @dotancohen - The command sudo -s already provides visual cues so i'm curios as to why sudo -i is a better option.

    – Motivated
    Jan 16 at 19:28



















9














su asks for the password of the user "root".



sudo asks for your own password (and also checks if you're allowed to run commands as root, which is configured through /etc/sudoers -- by default all user accounts that belong to the "admin" or "sudo" groups are allowed to use sudo).



sudo -s launches a shell as root, but doesn't change your working directory. sudo -i simulates a login into the root account: your working directory will be /root, and root's .profile etc. will be sourced as if on login.






share|improve this answer





















  • 1





    to make the answer more complete: sudo -s is almost equal to su ($HOME is different) and sudo -i is equal to su -

    – DJCrashdummy
    Jul 29 '17 at 0:58













  • @DJCrashdummy - Why do you say almost equal to? What is different?

    – Motivated
    Jan 17 at 4:38



















2














In Ubuntu or a related system, I don't find much use for su in the traditional, super-user sense. sudo handles that case much better. However, su is great for becoming another user in one-off situations where configuring sudoers would be silly.



For example, if I'm repairing my system from a live CD/USB, I'll often mount my hard drive and other necessary stuff and chroot into the system. In such a case, my first command is generally:



su - myuser  # Note the '-'. It means to act as if that user had just logged in.


That way, I'm operating not as root, but as my normal user, and I then use sudo as appropriate.






share|improve this answer























    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "89"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faskubuntu.com%2fquestions%2f70534%2fwhat-are-the-differences-between-su-sudo-s-sudo-i-sudo-su%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    5 Answers
    5






    active

    oldest

    votes








    5 Answers
    5






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    114














    The main difference between these commands is in the way they restrict access to their functions.



    su (which means "substitute user" or "switch user") - does exactly that, it starts another shell instance with privileges of the target user. To ensure you have the rights to do that, it asks you for the password of the target user. So, to become root, you need to know root password. If there are several users on your machine who need to run commands as root, they all need to know root password - note that it'll be the same password. If you need to revoke admin permissions from one of the users, you need to change root password and tell it only to those people who need to keep access - messy.



    sudo (hmm... what's the mnemonic? Super-User-DO?) is completely different. It uses a config file (/etc/sudoers) which lists which users have rights to specific actions (run commands as root, etc.) When invoked, it asks for the password of the user who started it - to ensure the person at the terminal is really the same "joe" who's listed in /etc/sudoers. To revoke admin privileges from a person, you just need to edit the config file (or remove the user from a group which is listed in that config). This results in much cleaner management of privileges.



    As a result of this, in many Debian-based systems root user has no password set - i.e. it's not possible to login as root directly.



    Also, /etc/sudoers allows to specify some additional options - i.e. user X is only able to run program Y etc.



    The often-used sudo su combination works as follows: first sudo asks you for your password, and, if you're allowed to do so, invokes the next command (su) as a super-user. Because su is invoked by root, it does not require you to enter the target user's password. So, sudo su allows you to open a shell as another user (including root), if you're allowed super-user access by the /etc/sudoers file.






    share|improve this answer





















    • 2





      I've never seen su as "switch user", but always as superuser; the default behavior without another's user name (though it makes sense). From wikipedia : "The su command, also referred to as super user[1] as early as 1974, has also been called "substitute user", "spoof user" or "set user" because it allows changing the account associated with the current terminal (window)."

      – dr jimbob
      Oct 22 '11 at 13:47






    • 4





      @dr jimbob: you're right, but I'm finding that "switch user" is kinda describes better what it does - though historically it stands for "super user". I'm also delighted to find that the wikipedia article is very similar to my answer - I never saw the article before :)

      – Sergey
      Oct 22 '11 at 20:33








    • 11





      The official meaning of "su" is "substitute user". See: "man su".

      – Angel O'Sphere
      Nov 26 '13 at 13:02






    • 1





      @AngelO'Sphere: Interestingly, Ubuntu's manpage does not mention "substitute" at all. The manpage at gnu.org (gnu.org/software/coreutils/manual/html_node/su-invocation.html) does indeed say "su: Run a command with substitute user and group ID". I think gnu.org is a canonical source :)

      – Sergey
      Nov 26 '13 at 20:25






    • 1





      What about sudo su?

      – Kaz Wolfe
      Oct 15 '14 at 8:14
















    114














    The main difference between these commands is in the way they restrict access to their functions.



    su (which means "substitute user" or "switch user") - does exactly that, it starts another shell instance with privileges of the target user. To ensure you have the rights to do that, it asks you for the password of the target user. So, to become root, you need to know root password. If there are several users on your machine who need to run commands as root, they all need to know root password - note that it'll be the same password. If you need to revoke admin permissions from one of the users, you need to change root password and tell it only to those people who need to keep access - messy.



    sudo (hmm... what's the mnemonic? Super-User-DO?) is completely different. It uses a config file (/etc/sudoers) which lists which users have rights to specific actions (run commands as root, etc.) When invoked, it asks for the password of the user who started it - to ensure the person at the terminal is really the same "joe" who's listed in /etc/sudoers. To revoke admin privileges from a person, you just need to edit the config file (or remove the user from a group which is listed in that config). This results in much cleaner management of privileges.



    As a result of this, in many Debian-based systems root user has no password set - i.e. it's not possible to login as root directly.



    Also, /etc/sudoers allows to specify some additional options - i.e. user X is only able to run program Y etc.



    The often-used sudo su combination works as follows: first sudo asks you for your password, and, if you're allowed to do so, invokes the next command (su) as a super-user. Because su is invoked by root, it does not require you to enter the target user's password. So, sudo su allows you to open a shell as another user (including root), if you're allowed super-user access by the /etc/sudoers file.






    share|improve this answer





















    • 2





      I've never seen su as "switch user", but always as superuser; the default behavior without another's user name (though it makes sense). From wikipedia : "The su command, also referred to as super user[1] as early as 1974, has also been called "substitute user", "spoof user" or "set user" because it allows changing the account associated with the current terminal (window)."

      – dr jimbob
      Oct 22 '11 at 13:47






    • 4





      @dr jimbob: you're right, but I'm finding that "switch user" is kinda describes better what it does - though historically it stands for "super user". I'm also delighted to find that the wikipedia article is very similar to my answer - I never saw the article before :)

      – Sergey
      Oct 22 '11 at 20:33








    • 11





      The official meaning of "su" is "substitute user". See: "man su".

      – Angel O'Sphere
      Nov 26 '13 at 13:02






    • 1





      @AngelO'Sphere: Interestingly, Ubuntu's manpage does not mention "substitute" at all. The manpage at gnu.org (gnu.org/software/coreutils/manual/html_node/su-invocation.html) does indeed say "su: Run a command with substitute user and group ID". I think gnu.org is a canonical source :)

      – Sergey
      Nov 26 '13 at 20:25






    • 1





      What about sudo su?

      – Kaz Wolfe
      Oct 15 '14 at 8:14














    114












    114








    114







    The main difference between these commands is in the way they restrict access to their functions.



    su (which means "substitute user" or "switch user") - does exactly that, it starts another shell instance with privileges of the target user. To ensure you have the rights to do that, it asks you for the password of the target user. So, to become root, you need to know root password. If there are several users on your machine who need to run commands as root, they all need to know root password - note that it'll be the same password. If you need to revoke admin permissions from one of the users, you need to change root password and tell it only to those people who need to keep access - messy.



    sudo (hmm... what's the mnemonic? Super-User-DO?) is completely different. It uses a config file (/etc/sudoers) which lists which users have rights to specific actions (run commands as root, etc.) When invoked, it asks for the password of the user who started it - to ensure the person at the terminal is really the same "joe" who's listed in /etc/sudoers. To revoke admin privileges from a person, you just need to edit the config file (or remove the user from a group which is listed in that config). This results in much cleaner management of privileges.



    As a result of this, in many Debian-based systems root user has no password set - i.e. it's not possible to login as root directly.



    Also, /etc/sudoers allows to specify some additional options - i.e. user X is only able to run program Y etc.



    The often-used sudo su combination works as follows: first sudo asks you for your password, and, if you're allowed to do so, invokes the next command (su) as a super-user. Because su is invoked by root, it does not require you to enter the target user's password. So, sudo su allows you to open a shell as another user (including root), if you're allowed super-user access by the /etc/sudoers file.






    share|improve this answer















    The main difference between these commands is in the way they restrict access to their functions.



    su (which means "substitute user" or "switch user") - does exactly that, it starts another shell instance with privileges of the target user. To ensure you have the rights to do that, it asks you for the password of the target user. So, to become root, you need to know root password. If there are several users on your machine who need to run commands as root, they all need to know root password - note that it'll be the same password. If you need to revoke admin permissions from one of the users, you need to change root password and tell it only to those people who need to keep access - messy.



    sudo (hmm... what's the mnemonic? Super-User-DO?) is completely different. It uses a config file (/etc/sudoers) which lists which users have rights to specific actions (run commands as root, etc.) When invoked, it asks for the password of the user who started it - to ensure the person at the terminal is really the same "joe" who's listed in /etc/sudoers. To revoke admin privileges from a person, you just need to edit the config file (or remove the user from a group which is listed in that config). This results in much cleaner management of privileges.



    As a result of this, in many Debian-based systems root user has no password set - i.e. it's not possible to login as root directly.



    Also, /etc/sudoers allows to specify some additional options - i.e. user X is only able to run program Y etc.



    The often-used sudo su combination works as follows: first sudo asks you for your password, and, if you're allowed to do so, invokes the next command (su) as a super-user. Because su is invoked by root, it does not require you to enter the target user's password. So, sudo su allows you to open a shell as another user (including root), if you're allowed super-user access by the /etc/sudoers file.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Feb 6 '15 at 22:37

























    answered Oct 22 '11 at 7:21









    SergeySergey

    36.4k98799




    36.4k98799








    • 2





      I've never seen su as "switch user", but always as superuser; the default behavior without another's user name (though it makes sense). From wikipedia : "The su command, also referred to as super user[1] as early as 1974, has also been called "substitute user", "spoof user" or "set user" because it allows changing the account associated with the current terminal (window)."

      – dr jimbob
      Oct 22 '11 at 13:47






    • 4





      @dr jimbob: you're right, but I'm finding that "switch user" is kinda describes better what it does - though historically it stands for "super user". I'm also delighted to find that the wikipedia article is very similar to my answer - I never saw the article before :)

      – Sergey
      Oct 22 '11 at 20:33








    • 11





      The official meaning of "su" is "substitute user". See: "man su".

      – Angel O'Sphere
      Nov 26 '13 at 13:02






    • 1





      @AngelO'Sphere: Interestingly, Ubuntu's manpage does not mention "substitute" at all. The manpage at gnu.org (gnu.org/software/coreutils/manual/html_node/su-invocation.html) does indeed say "su: Run a command with substitute user and group ID". I think gnu.org is a canonical source :)

      – Sergey
      Nov 26 '13 at 20:25






    • 1





      What about sudo su?

      – Kaz Wolfe
      Oct 15 '14 at 8:14














    • 2





      I've never seen su as "switch user", but always as superuser; the default behavior without another's user name (though it makes sense). From wikipedia : "The su command, also referred to as super user[1] as early as 1974, has also been called "substitute user", "spoof user" or "set user" because it allows changing the account associated with the current terminal (window)."

      – dr jimbob
      Oct 22 '11 at 13:47






    • 4





      @dr jimbob: you're right, but I'm finding that "switch user" is kinda describes better what it does - though historically it stands for "super user". I'm also delighted to find that the wikipedia article is very similar to my answer - I never saw the article before :)

      – Sergey
      Oct 22 '11 at 20:33








    • 11





      The official meaning of "su" is "substitute user". See: "man su".

      – Angel O'Sphere
      Nov 26 '13 at 13:02






    • 1





      @AngelO'Sphere: Interestingly, Ubuntu's manpage does not mention "substitute" at all. The manpage at gnu.org (gnu.org/software/coreutils/manual/html_node/su-invocation.html) does indeed say "su: Run a command with substitute user and group ID". I think gnu.org is a canonical source :)

      – Sergey
      Nov 26 '13 at 20:25






    • 1





      What about sudo su?

      – Kaz Wolfe
      Oct 15 '14 at 8:14








    2




    2





    I've never seen su as "switch user", but always as superuser; the default behavior without another's user name (though it makes sense). From wikipedia : "The su command, also referred to as super user[1] as early as 1974, has also been called "substitute user", "spoof user" or "set user" because it allows changing the account associated with the current terminal (window)."

    – dr jimbob
    Oct 22 '11 at 13:47





    I've never seen su as "switch user", but always as superuser; the default behavior without another's user name (though it makes sense). From wikipedia : "The su command, also referred to as super user[1] as early as 1974, has also been called "substitute user", "spoof user" or "set user" because it allows changing the account associated with the current terminal (window)."

    – dr jimbob
    Oct 22 '11 at 13:47




    4




    4





    @dr jimbob: you're right, but I'm finding that "switch user" is kinda describes better what it does - though historically it stands for "super user". I'm also delighted to find that the wikipedia article is very similar to my answer - I never saw the article before :)

    – Sergey
    Oct 22 '11 at 20:33







    @dr jimbob: you're right, but I'm finding that "switch user" is kinda describes better what it does - though historically it stands for "super user". I'm also delighted to find that the wikipedia article is very similar to my answer - I never saw the article before :)

    – Sergey
    Oct 22 '11 at 20:33






    11




    11





    The official meaning of "su" is "substitute user". See: "man su".

    – Angel O'Sphere
    Nov 26 '13 at 13:02





    The official meaning of "su" is "substitute user". See: "man su".

    – Angel O'Sphere
    Nov 26 '13 at 13:02




    1




    1





    @AngelO'Sphere: Interestingly, Ubuntu's manpage does not mention "substitute" at all. The manpage at gnu.org (gnu.org/software/coreutils/manual/html_node/su-invocation.html) does indeed say "su: Run a command with substitute user and group ID". I think gnu.org is a canonical source :)

    – Sergey
    Nov 26 '13 at 20:25





    @AngelO'Sphere: Interestingly, Ubuntu's manpage does not mention "substitute" at all. The manpage at gnu.org (gnu.org/software/coreutils/manual/html_node/su-invocation.html) does indeed say "su: Run a command with substitute user and group ID". I think gnu.org is a canonical source :)

    – Sergey
    Nov 26 '13 at 20:25




    1




    1





    What about sudo su?

    – Kaz Wolfe
    Oct 15 '14 at 8:14





    What about sudo su?

    – Kaz Wolfe
    Oct 15 '14 at 8:14













    52














    sudo lets you run commands in your own user account with root privileges. su lets you switch user so that you're actually logged in as root.



    sudo -s runs a shell with root privileges. sudo -i also acquires the root user's environment.



    To see the difference between su and sudo -s, do cd ~ and then pwd after each of them. In the first case, you'll be in root's home directory, because you're root. In the second case, you'll be in your own home directory, because you're yourself with root privileges.



    There's more discussion of this exact question here.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 19





      "you're yourself with root privileges" is not what's actually happening :) Actually, it's not possible to be "yourself with root privileges" - either you're root or you're yourself. Try typing whoami in both cases. The fact that cd ~ results are different is a result of sudo -s not setting $HOME environment variable.

      – Sergey
      Oct 22 '11 at 7:28






    • 1





      @Sergey, whoami it says are 'root' because you are running the 'whoami' cmd as though you sudoed it, so temporarily (for the duration of that command) you appear to be the root user, but you might still not have full root access according to the sudoers file.

      – Octopus
      Feb 6 '15 at 22:15








    • 1





      @Octopus: what I was trying to say is that in Unix, a process can only have one UID, and that UID determines the permissions of the process. You can't be "yourself with root privileges", a program either runs with your UID or with root's UID (0).

      – Sergey
      Feb 6 '15 at 22:24






    • 5





      Regarding "you might still not have full root access according to the sudoers file": the sudoers file controls who can run which command as another user, but that happens before the command is executed. However, once you were allowed to start a process as, say, root - the running process has root's UID and has a full access to the system, there's no way for sudo to restrict that. Again, you're always either yourself or root, there's no "half-n-half". So, if sudoers file allows you to run shell as root - permissions in that shell would be indistinguishable from a "normal" root shell.

      – Sergey
      Feb 6 '15 at 22:32


















    52














    sudo lets you run commands in your own user account with root privileges. su lets you switch user so that you're actually logged in as root.



    sudo -s runs a shell with root privileges. sudo -i also acquires the root user's environment.



    To see the difference between su and sudo -s, do cd ~ and then pwd after each of them. In the first case, you'll be in root's home directory, because you're root. In the second case, you'll be in your own home directory, because you're yourself with root privileges.



    There's more discussion of this exact question here.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 19





      "you're yourself with root privileges" is not what's actually happening :) Actually, it's not possible to be "yourself with root privileges" - either you're root or you're yourself. Try typing whoami in both cases. The fact that cd ~ results are different is a result of sudo -s not setting $HOME environment variable.

      – Sergey
      Oct 22 '11 at 7:28






    • 1





      @Sergey, whoami it says are 'root' because you are running the 'whoami' cmd as though you sudoed it, so temporarily (for the duration of that command) you appear to be the root user, but you might still not have full root access according to the sudoers file.

      – Octopus
      Feb 6 '15 at 22:15








    • 1





      @Octopus: what I was trying to say is that in Unix, a process can only have one UID, and that UID determines the permissions of the process. You can't be "yourself with root privileges", a program either runs with your UID or with root's UID (0).

      – Sergey
      Feb 6 '15 at 22:24






    • 5





      Regarding "you might still not have full root access according to the sudoers file": the sudoers file controls who can run which command as another user, but that happens before the command is executed. However, once you were allowed to start a process as, say, root - the running process has root's UID and has a full access to the system, there's no way for sudo to restrict that. Again, you're always either yourself or root, there's no "half-n-half". So, if sudoers file allows you to run shell as root - permissions in that shell would be indistinguishable from a "normal" root shell.

      – Sergey
      Feb 6 '15 at 22:32
















    52












    52








    52







    sudo lets you run commands in your own user account with root privileges. su lets you switch user so that you're actually logged in as root.



    sudo -s runs a shell with root privileges. sudo -i also acquires the root user's environment.



    To see the difference between su and sudo -s, do cd ~ and then pwd after each of them. In the first case, you'll be in root's home directory, because you're root. In the second case, you'll be in your own home directory, because you're yourself with root privileges.



    There's more discussion of this exact question here.






    share|improve this answer













    sudo lets you run commands in your own user account with root privileges. su lets you switch user so that you're actually logged in as root.



    sudo -s runs a shell with root privileges. sudo -i also acquires the root user's environment.



    To see the difference between su and sudo -s, do cd ~ and then pwd after each of them. In the first case, you'll be in root's home directory, because you're root. In the second case, you'll be in your own home directory, because you're yourself with root privileges.



    There's more discussion of this exact question here.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered Oct 22 '11 at 6:28









    Mike ScottMike Scott

    1,64921214




    1,64921214








    • 19





      "you're yourself with root privileges" is not what's actually happening :) Actually, it's not possible to be "yourself with root privileges" - either you're root or you're yourself. Try typing whoami in both cases. The fact that cd ~ results are different is a result of sudo -s not setting $HOME environment variable.

      – Sergey
      Oct 22 '11 at 7:28






    • 1





      @Sergey, whoami it says are 'root' because you are running the 'whoami' cmd as though you sudoed it, so temporarily (for the duration of that command) you appear to be the root user, but you might still not have full root access according to the sudoers file.

      – Octopus
      Feb 6 '15 at 22:15








    • 1





      @Octopus: what I was trying to say is that in Unix, a process can only have one UID, and that UID determines the permissions of the process. You can't be "yourself with root privileges", a program either runs with your UID or with root's UID (0).

      – Sergey
      Feb 6 '15 at 22:24






    • 5





      Regarding "you might still not have full root access according to the sudoers file": the sudoers file controls who can run which command as another user, but that happens before the command is executed. However, once you were allowed to start a process as, say, root - the running process has root's UID and has a full access to the system, there's no way for sudo to restrict that. Again, you're always either yourself or root, there's no "half-n-half". So, if sudoers file allows you to run shell as root - permissions in that shell would be indistinguishable from a "normal" root shell.

      – Sergey
      Feb 6 '15 at 22:32
















    • 19





      "you're yourself with root privileges" is not what's actually happening :) Actually, it's not possible to be "yourself with root privileges" - either you're root or you're yourself. Try typing whoami in both cases. The fact that cd ~ results are different is a result of sudo -s not setting $HOME environment variable.

      – Sergey
      Oct 22 '11 at 7:28






    • 1





      @Sergey, whoami it says are 'root' because you are running the 'whoami' cmd as though you sudoed it, so temporarily (for the duration of that command) you appear to be the root user, but you might still not have full root access according to the sudoers file.

      – Octopus
      Feb 6 '15 at 22:15








    • 1





      @Octopus: what I was trying to say is that in Unix, a process can only have one UID, and that UID determines the permissions of the process. You can't be "yourself with root privileges", a program either runs with your UID or with root's UID (0).

      – Sergey
      Feb 6 '15 at 22:24






    • 5





      Regarding "you might still not have full root access according to the sudoers file": the sudoers file controls who can run which command as another user, but that happens before the command is executed. However, once you were allowed to start a process as, say, root - the running process has root's UID and has a full access to the system, there's no way for sudo to restrict that. Again, you're always either yourself or root, there's no "half-n-half". So, if sudoers file allows you to run shell as root - permissions in that shell would be indistinguishable from a "normal" root shell.

      – Sergey
      Feb 6 '15 at 22:32










    19




    19





    "you're yourself with root privileges" is not what's actually happening :) Actually, it's not possible to be "yourself with root privileges" - either you're root or you're yourself. Try typing whoami in both cases. The fact that cd ~ results are different is a result of sudo -s not setting $HOME environment variable.

    – Sergey
    Oct 22 '11 at 7:28





    "you're yourself with root privileges" is not what's actually happening :) Actually, it's not possible to be "yourself with root privileges" - either you're root or you're yourself. Try typing whoami in both cases. The fact that cd ~ results are different is a result of sudo -s not setting $HOME environment variable.

    – Sergey
    Oct 22 '11 at 7:28




    1




    1





    @Sergey, whoami it says are 'root' because you are running the 'whoami' cmd as though you sudoed it, so temporarily (for the duration of that command) you appear to be the root user, but you might still not have full root access according to the sudoers file.

    – Octopus
    Feb 6 '15 at 22:15







    @Sergey, whoami it says are 'root' because you are running the 'whoami' cmd as though you sudoed it, so temporarily (for the duration of that command) you appear to be the root user, but you might still not have full root access according to the sudoers file.

    – Octopus
    Feb 6 '15 at 22:15






    1




    1





    @Octopus: what I was trying to say is that in Unix, a process can only have one UID, and that UID determines the permissions of the process. You can't be "yourself with root privileges", a program either runs with your UID or with root's UID (0).

    – Sergey
    Feb 6 '15 at 22:24





    @Octopus: what I was trying to say is that in Unix, a process can only have one UID, and that UID determines the permissions of the process. You can't be "yourself with root privileges", a program either runs with your UID or with root's UID (0).

    – Sergey
    Feb 6 '15 at 22:24




    5




    5





    Regarding "you might still not have full root access according to the sudoers file": the sudoers file controls who can run which command as another user, but that happens before the command is executed. However, once you were allowed to start a process as, say, root - the running process has root's UID and has a full access to the system, there's no way for sudo to restrict that. Again, you're always either yourself or root, there's no "half-n-half". So, if sudoers file allows you to run shell as root - permissions in that shell would be indistinguishable from a "normal" root shell.

    – Sergey
    Feb 6 '15 at 22:32







    Regarding "you might still not have full root access according to the sudoers file": the sudoers file controls who can run which command as another user, but that happens before the command is executed. However, once you were allowed to start a process as, say, root - the running process has root's UID and has a full access to the system, there's no way for sudo to restrict that. Again, you're always either yourself or root, there's no "half-n-half". So, if sudoers file allows you to run shell as root - permissions in that shell would be indistinguishable from a "normal" root shell.

    – Sergey
    Feb 6 '15 at 22:32













    33














    This answer is a dupe of my answer on a dupe of this question, put here on the canonical answer so that people can find it!



    The major difference between sudo -i and sudo -s is:





    • sudo -i gives you the root environment, i.e. your ~/.bashrc is ignored.


    • sudo -s gives you the user's environment, so your ~/.bashrc is respected.


    Here is an example, you can see that I have an application lsl in my ~/.bin/ directory which is accessible via sudo -s but not accessible with sudo -i. Note also that the Bash prompt changes as will with sudo -i but not with sudo -s:



    dotancohen@melancholy:~$ ls .bin
    lsl

    dotancohen@melancholy:~$ which lsl
    /home/dotancohen/.bin/lsl

    dotancohen@melancholy:~$ sudo -i

    root@melancholy:~# which lsl

    root@melancholy:~# exit
    logout

    dotancohen@melancholy:~$ sudo -s
    Sourced .bashrc

    dotancohen@melancholy:~$ which lsl
    /home/dotancohen/.bin/lsl

    dotancohen@melancholy:~$ exit
    exit


    Though sudo -s is convenient for giving you the environment that you are familiar with, I recommend the use of sudo -i for two reasons:




    1. The visual reminder that you are in a 'root' session.

    2. The root environment is far less likely to be poisoned with malware, such as a rogue line in .bashrc.






    share|improve this answer


























    • I noticed sudo -s doesnt seem to process /etc/profile , or anything I have in /etc/profile.d/ .. any idea why?

      – meffect
      Feb 23 '17 at 5:21











    • @dotancohen - What do you mean by sudo -s provides an environment that a user is familiar with?

      – Motivated
      Jan 16 at 19:18











    • @dotancohen - The command sudo -s already provides visual cues so i'm curios as to why sudo -i is a better option.

      – Motivated
      Jan 16 at 19:28
















    33














    This answer is a dupe of my answer on a dupe of this question, put here on the canonical answer so that people can find it!



    The major difference between sudo -i and sudo -s is:





    • sudo -i gives you the root environment, i.e. your ~/.bashrc is ignored.


    • sudo -s gives you the user's environment, so your ~/.bashrc is respected.


    Here is an example, you can see that I have an application lsl in my ~/.bin/ directory which is accessible via sudo -s but not accessible with sudo -i. Note also that the Bash prompt changes as will with sudo -i but not with sudo -s:



    dotancohen@melancholy:~$ ls .bin
    lsl

    dotancohen@melancholy:~$ which lsl
    /home/dotancohen/.bin/lsl

    dotancohen@melancholy:~$ sudo -i

    root@melancholy:~# which lsl

    root@melancholy:~# exit
    logout

    dotancohen@melancholy:~$ sudo -s
    Sourced .bashrc

    dotancohen@melancholy:~$ which lsl
    /home/dotancohen/.bin/lsl

    dotancohen@melancholy:~$ exit
    exit


    Though sudo -s is convenient for giving you the environment that you are familiar with, I recommend the use of sudo -i for two reasons:




    1. The visual reminder that you are in a 'root' session.

    2. The root environment is far less likely to be poisoned with malware, such as a rogue line in .bashrc.






    share|improve this answer


























    • I noticed sudo -s doesnt seem to process /etc/profile , or anything I have in /etc/profile.d/ .. any idea why?

      – meffect
      Feb 23 '17 at 5:21











    • @dotancohen - What do you mean by sudo -s provides an environment that a user is familiar with?

      – Motivated
      Jan 16 at 19:18











    • @dotancohen - The command sudo -s already provides visual cues so i'm curios as to why sudo -i is a better option.

      – Motivated
      Jan 16 at 19:28














    33












    33








    33







    This answer is a dupe of my answer on a dupe of this question, put here on the canonical answer so that people can find it!



    The major difference between sudo -i and sudo -s is:





    • sudo -i gives you the root environment, i.e. your ~/.bashrc is ignored.


    • sudo -s gives you the user's environment, so your ~/.bashrc is respected.


    Here is an example, you can see that I have an application lsl in my ~/.bin/ directory which is accessible via sudo -s but not accessible with sudo -i. Note also that the Bash prompt changes as will with sudo -i but not with sudo -s:



    dotancohen@melancholy:~$ ls .bin
    lsl

    dotancohen@melancholy:~$ which lsl
    /home/dotancohen/.bin/lsl

    dotancohen@melancholy:~$ sudo -i

    root@melancholy:~# which lsl

    root@melancholy:~# exit
    logout

    dotancohen@melancholy:~$ sudo -s
    Sourced .bashrc

    dotancohen@melancholy:~$ which lsl
    /home/dotancohen/.bin/lsl

    dotancohen@melancholy:~$ exit
    exit


    Though sudo -s is convenient for giving you the environment that you are familiar with, I recommend the use of sudo -i for two reasons:




    1. The visual reminder that you are in a 'root' session.

    2. The root environment is far less likely to be poisoned with malware, such as a rogue line in .bashrc.






    share|improve this answer















    This answer is a dupe of my answer on a dupe of this question, put here on the canonical answer so that people can find it!



    The major difference between sudo -i and sudo -s is:





    • sudo -i gives you the root environment, i.e. your ~/.bashrc is ignored.


    • sudo -s gives you the user's environment, so your ~/.bashrc is respected.


    Here is an example, you can see that I have an application lsl in my ~/.bin/ directory which is accessible via sudo -s but not accessible with sudo -i. Note also that the Bash prompt changes as will with sudo -i but not with sudo -s:



    dotancohen@melancholy:~$ ls .bin
    lsl

    dotancohen@melancholy:~$ which lsl
    /home/dotancohen/.bin/lsl

    dotancohen@melancholy:~$ sudo -i

    root@melancholy:~# which lsl

    root@melancholy:~# exit
    logout

    dotancohen@melancholy:~$ sudo -s
    Sourced .bashrc

    dotancohen@melancholy:~$ which lsl
    /home/dotancohen/.bin/lsl

    dotancohen@melancholy:~$ exit
    exit


    Though sudo -s is convenient for giving you the environment that you are familiar with, I recommend the use of sudo -i for two reasons:




    1. The visual reminder that you are in a 'root' session.

    2. The root environment is far less likely to be poisoned with malware, such as a rogue line in .bashrc.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:23









    Community

    1




    1










    answered Nov 8 '14 at 14:07









    dotancohendotancohen

    1,68242335




    1,68242335













    • I noticed sudo -s doesnt seem to process /etc/profile , or anything I have in /etc/profile.d/ .. any idea why?

      – meffect
      Feb 23 '17 at 5:21











    • @dotancohen - What do you mean by sudo -s provides an environment that a user is familiar with?

      – Motivated
      Jan 16 at 19:18











    • @dotancohen - The command sudo -s already provides visual cues so i'm curios as to why sudo -i is a better option.

      – Motivated
      Jan 16 at 19:28



















    • I noticed sudo -s doesnt seem to process /etc/profile , or anything I have in /etc/profile.d/ .. any idea why?

      – meffect
      Feb 23 '17 at 5:21











    • @dotancohen - What do you mean by sudo -s provides an environment that a user is familiar with?

      – Motivated
      Jan 16 at 19:18











    • @dotancohen - The command sudo -s already provides visual cues so i'm curios as to why sudo -i is a better option.

      – Motivated
      Jan 16 at 19:28

















    I noticed sudo -s doesnt seem to process /etc/profile , or anything I have in /etc/profile.d/ .. any idea why?

    – meffect
    Feb 23 '17 at 5:21





    I noticed sudo -s doesnt seem to process /etc/profile , or anything I have in /etc/profile.d/ .. any idea why?

    – meffect
    Feb 23 '17 at 5:21













    @dotancohen - What do you mean by sudo -s provides an environment that a user is familiar with?

    – Motivated
    Jan 16 at 19:18





    @dotancohen - What do you mean by sudo -s provides an environment that a user is familiar with?

    – Motivated
    Jan 16 at 19:18













    @dotancohen - The command sudo -s already provides visual cues so i'm curios as to why sudo -i is a better option.

    – Motivated
    Jan 16 at 19:28





    @dotancohen - The command sudo -s already provides visual cues so i'm curios as to why sudo -i is a better option.

    – Motivated
    Jan 16 at 19:28











    9














    su asks for the password of the user "root".



    sudo asks for your own password (and also checks if you're allowed to run commands as root, which is configured through /etc/sudoers -- by default all user accounts that belong to the "admin" or "sudo" groups are allowed to use sudo).



    sudo -s launches a shell as root, but doesn't change your working directory. sudo -i simulates a login into the root account: your working directory will be /root, and root's .profile etc. will be sourced as if on login.






    share|improve this answer





















    • 1





      to make the answer more complete: sudo -s is almost equal to su ($HOME is different) and sudo -i is equal to su -

      – DJCrashdummy
      Jul 29 '17 at 0:58













    • @DJCrashdummy - Why do you say almost equal to? What is different?

      – Motivated
      Jan 17 at 4:38
















    9














    su asks for the password of the user "root".



    sudo asks for your own password (and also checks if you're allowed to run commands as root, which is configured through /etc/sudoers -- by default all user accounts that belong to the "admin" or "sudo" groups are allowed to use sudo).



    sudo -s launches a shell as root, but doesn't change your working directory. sudo -i simulates a login into the root account: your working directory will be /root, and root's .profile etc. will be sourced as if on login.






    share|improve this answer





















    • 1





      to make the answer more complete: sudo -s is almost equal to su ($HOME is different) and sudo -i is equal to su -

      – DJCrashdummy
      Jul 29 '17 at 0:58













    • @DJCrashdummy - Why do you say almost equal to? What is different?

      – Motivated
      Jan 17 at 4:38














    9












    9








    9







    su asks for the password of the user "root".



    sudo asks for your own password (and also checks if you're allowed to run commands as root, which is configured through /etc/sudoers -- by default all user accounts that belong to the "admin" or "sudo" groups are allowed to use sudo).



    sudo -s launches a shell as root, but doesn't change your working directory. sudo -i simulates a login into the root account: your working directory will be /root, and root's .profile etc. will be sourced as if on login.






    share|improve this answer















    su asks for the password of the user "root".



    sudo asks for your own password (and also checks if you're allowed to run commands as root, which is configured through /etc/sudoers -- by default all user accounts that belong to the "admin" or "sudo" groups are allowed to use sudo).



    sudo -s launches a shell as root, but doesn't change your working directory. sudo -i simulates a login into the root account: your working directory will be /root, and root's .profile etc. will be sourced as if on login.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Jan 17 at 11:33

























    answered Oct 22 '11 at 19:38









    Marius GedminasMarius Gedminas

    7,39573647




    7,39573647








    • 1





      to make the answer more complete: sudo -s is almost equal to su ($HOME is different) and sudo -i is equal to su -

      – DJCrashdummy
      Jul 29 '17 at 0:58













    • @DJCrashdummy - Why do you say almost equal to? What is different?

      – Motivated
      Jan 17 at 4:38














    • 1





      to make the answer more complete: sudo -s is almost equal to su ($HOME is different) and sudo -i is equal to su -

      – DJCrashdummy
      Jul 29 '17 at 0:58













    • @DJCrashdummy - Why do you say almost equal to? What is different?

      – Motivated
      Jan 17 at 4:38








    1




    1





    to make the answer more complete: sudo -s is almost equal to su ($HOME is different) and sudo -i is equal to su -

    – DJCrashdummy
    Jul 29 '17 at 0:58







    to make the answer more complete: sudo -s is almost equal to su ($HOME is different) and sudo -i is equal to su -

    – DJCrashdummy
    Jul 29 '17 at 0:58















    @DJCrashdummy - Why do you say almost equal to? What is different?

    – Motivated
    Jan 17 at 4:38





    @DJCrashdummy - Why do you say almost equal to? What is different?

    – Motivated
    Jan 17 at 4:38











    2














    In Ubuntu or a related system, I don't find much use for su in the traditional, super-user sense. sudo handles that case much better. However, su is great for becoming another user in one-off situations where configuring sudoers would be silly.



    For example, if I'm repairing my system from a live CD/USB, I'll often mount my hard drive and other necessary stuff and chroot into the system. In such a case, my first command is generally:



    su - myuser  # Note the '-'. It means to act as if that user had just logged in.


    That way, I'm operating not as root, but as my normal user, and I then use sudo as appropriate.






    share|improve this answer




























      2














      In Ubuntu or a related system, I don't find much use for su in the traditional, super-user sense. sudo handles that case much better. However, su is great for becoming another user in one-off situations where configuring sudoers would be silly.



      For example, if I'm repairing my system from a live CD/USB, I'll often mount my hard drive and other necessary stuff and chroot into the system. In such a case, my first command is generally:



      su - myuser  # Note the '-'. It means to act as if that user had just logged in.


      That way, I'm operating not as root, but as my normal user, and I then use sudo as appropriate.






      share|improve this answer


























        2












        2








        2







        In Ubuntu or a related system, I don't find much use for su in the traditional, super-user sense. sudo handles that case much better. However, su is great for becoming another user in one-off situations where configuring sudoers would be silly.



        For example, if I'm repairing my system from a live CD/USB, I'll often mount my hard drive and other necessary stuff and chroot into the system. In such a case, my first command is generally:



        su - myuser  # Note the '-'. It means to act as if that user had just logged in.


        That way, I'm operating not as root, but as my normal user, and I then use sudo as appropriate.






        share|improve this answer













        In Ubuntu or a related system, I don't find much use for su in the traditional, super-user sense. sudo handles that case much better. However, su is great for becoming another user in one-off situations where configuring sudoers would be silly.



        For example, if I'm repairing my system from a live CD/USB, I'll often mount my hard drive and other necessary stuff and chroot into the system. In such a case, my first command is generally:



        su - myuser  # Note the '-'. It means to act as if that user had just logged in.


        That way, I'm operating not as root, but as my normal user, and I then use sudo as appropriate.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered Oct 26 '11 at 7:23









        Scott SeveranceScott Severance

        10.4k73568




        10.4k73568






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Ask Ubuntu!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faskubuntu.com%2fquestions%2f70534%2fwhat-are-the-differences-between-su-sudo-s-sudo-i-sudo-su%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            flock() on closed filehandle LOCK_FILE at /usr/bin/apt-mirror

            Mangá

             ⁒  ․,‪⁊‑⁙ ⁖, ⁇‒※‌, †,⁖‗‌⁝    ‾‸⁘,‖⁔⁣,⁂‾
”‑,‥–,‬ ,⁀‹⁋‴⁑ ‒ ,‴⁋”‼ ⁨,‷⁔„ ‰′,‐‚ ‥‡‎“‷⁃⁨⁅⁣,⁔
⁇‘⁔⁡⁏⁌⁡‿‶‏⁨ ⁣⁕⁖⁨⁩⁥‽⁀  ‴‬⁜‟ ⁃‣‧⁕‮ …‍⁨‴ ⁩,⁚⁖‫ ,‵ ⁀,‮⁝‣‣ ⁑  ⁂– ․, ‾‽ ‏⁁“⁗‸ ‾… ‹‡⁌⁎‸‘ ‡⁏⁌‪ ‵⁛ ‎⁨ ―⁦⁤⁄⁕