>not granting your user root privileges instead of typying passwords for every apt-get you do
>when his computer's unpriv is owned, he's done for
<insert laughing whores i dont want to download>
sudo is a bloody bandaid over fundamentally anti-user, hostile security.
>>52204192
>apt-get
>2016
>>52204111
>he doesnt know what is security
>>52204111
checked.
not this shit again.
>not installing packages only to your user instead
>>52204192
>sudo is too hard
>>52204111
>having a user account when you can just use the root account itself
>>52206042
>3.5GB
kek
>>52204111
>giving your engineers root access
I seriously hope you don't do this
>>52206042
>what is the ubuntu equivalent of exe
I never did figure this out. Whenever I install linux on my old laptop I can't get the wifi working on it to check the internet to find out. So I plug it in and find the files I need but don't know how to jse them. Then I get pissed off and switch back to Windows 7. feelsbadman.jpg
>>52206095
Still need to do sudo tho
>>52204111
if you need being root all the time you are an idiot
also use su to [s]witch [u]ser when you need to
sudo -i
Done
>>52204111
>install application
>application has root privileges
>>52206950
WOW, the joke just flew right over your head. The joke here is, that it's a retarded question.
However, the closest "equivalent" to .exe files on Debian based systems is .deb
I've set NOPASSWD for my user in sudoers. IT might kill me if they ever find out.
>>52206042
sudo is for pussies, an intelligent person would just login as root.
>>52206195
why?
>>52208908
>The joke here is, that it's a retarded question.
Yeah, I think he got that, anon. It probably didn't make him any less curious to know the answer though.
So (.deb aside), what, are Linux executables simply extensionless then? Are they just raw binary files?
>>52209037
Because you are not retarded, anon
>>52209050
There is no conventional extension for executables in Linux.
>>52209052
I mean how giving root access to engineers is dangerous?
As long as your company does not recruit cretins, it's okay.
Nearly not as dangerous as an engineer leaking the source code they are working on or the git repository of the project. Which can also be solve by not recruiting cretins.
>>52209097
Everybody should use a different user, even the geniuses.
>>52209082
How does the filesystem determine that they are executables? Headers?
Moreover, how is the user supposed to know what is an executable and what isn't?
>>52209097
engineers are stupid, that's why
t. engineer
>>52209111
Yes. On unix systems, all executables are placed in certain directories. If they're not in one of those directories, they shouldn't be executed./bin # file echo
echo: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (FreeBSD), dynamically linked, interpreter /libexec/ld-elf.so.1, for FreeBSD 10.2, stripped
>>52209111
Permissions. You can basically "make" an executable with "chmod +x". As for the user, again permissions. Also the convention is to store executables in /bin, /usr/bin, etc.. so most of the time you dont run an executable from the folder.
>>52209134
Interesting.
>>52204111
>erdoğan
>doing something logical
I think I see your problem
>I use linux fulltime
>On both systems (One laptop, one tower)
>Nothing has broken once
>Install
steam
vlc
virtualbox
>Not needing anything else for computer science.
Well I guess windows wins since it offers more...
>Get a real job wincucks
>>52209131
If you're in India (where people fake diplomas), USA (where you literally pay for your degree instead of deserving it), Northern or Center Africa (low quality education due to lack of ressources but the top 5% of these dudes are ingenious as fuck tho) or China (where copying pays more than learning what is going on beneath the hood). Elsewhere, chances are a random engineer won't be dumb as a brick.
>>52206950
You can make all sorts of files executable.
>>52209360
>ia (where people fake diplomas), USA (where you literally pay for your degree instead of deserving it), Northern or Center Africa (low quality education due to lack of ressources but the top 5% of these dudes are ingenious as fuck tho) or China (where copying pays more than learning what is going on beneath the hood). Elsewhere, chances are a random engineer won't be dumb as a bri
>tfw europe
>>52204111alias sagi="sudo apt-get install"
alias sagr="sudo apt-get autoremove --purge"
alias sagu="sudo apt-get update"
alias saguu="sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get upgrade"
>>52209532
lmao. where did you get this?
>>52209532
>sagi
>not usagi
please senpai desu
>>52209134
You can have executables and scripts anywhere on filesystem. It depends on PATH variable if those files can be executed from anywhere.
>not just using su
plebs the lot of you
>>52209111
You don't happen to know much about operating systems, do you?
>>52210158
Yay for Cirno!
>>52209111
Filesystems shouldn't determine format. The OS uses headers.
An example of an OS where it lets the filesystem determine the format, is Windows.
↑↑↑↑↑↑↑
>>52208908
>However, the closest "equivalent" to .exe files on Debian based systems is .deb
no, deb is an archive format for packages, it's not even executable, .deb is closer to an .msi
>>52209050
>are Linux executables simply extensionless then? Are they just raw binary files?
they're typically extensionless, but they use the ELF format, so it's not incorrect to use .elf
formats in linux are determined by their magic (identifying bits at the beginning of the file contents), so extensions are not mandatory for common file types
>>52210174
My specialty is not the inner workings of how operating systems determine what format a file is.
>>52209532
>saguu
>not uguu
>>>52206973
>2015+1
>browses /g/ and doesn't understand root privileges.
There's no hope for you anon.
>>52209111
>Moreover, how is the user supposed to know what is an executable and what isn't?
exactly the same way as you would in windows
note that windows will hide the ".exe" from executables by default, so you end up using the same hints as you do in linux (that is, the OS knows it's executable, and so does your file manager, so it can say if it is or not)
pic related, notice;
- no extension
- "executable" type icon
- "executable" type text
>>52204111
>apt-get
wtf you know its 2016 right?
ubuntu is worst right because you su root and you type your own fucking password so what is the point of that?
>>52212012
>browses /g/ and doesn't understand what else sudo is used for
>>52204111
su root
>>52208913
We fucking know. If your trust score gets low enough you'll get locked down and have no rights at all.
>>52209134
you can have your executables wherever the fuck you want as long as the location/directory/partition doesn't have the noexec flag.
putting executables in $PATH just makes them available from anywhere on the system.
Outside $PATH you have to specifiy the exact location to execute them.
>>52204111
> trips speak truth
By the way just use sudoers and NOPASSWD.
You can also just use aliases to get rid of sudo.
>>52209682
he wrote himself?
it goes into your bashrc.
you could also just:
alias s="sudo"
then:
s apt-get update
or do what he did
