4 ms·

doas is not intended to be a drop in placement for sudo. While the core feature (run a command as another user) is the same, many of the subfeatures are differe

• quotemstr 7y ago
  That's my point: instead of telling everyone to switch to doas, which is a major disruption, someonee shold make a drop-in in sudo reimplementation, which can be used without disrupting existing workflows.
  • toast0 7y ago
    Instead if writing a drop-in replacement, which would be a lot of work, the authors wrote a replacement for the workflows they cared about, without nearly as much flexibility or complexity. A 3rd party rewrite is a great time to assess what features are core features and which are extraneous. I haven't evaluated doas, but I'm definitely in favor of priviledged utilities having less code in general and having less complexity.
    • quotemstr 7y ago
      Sudo features exist for a reason. People use them. If you delete random features that you don't happen to use, the people who use sudo today won't switch to your new tool. It doesn't matter that in your opinion those missing features are unnecessary. You don't get to make the call. If your goal is to eliminate unsafe C code from critical paths, you want a drop-in sudo replacement. If your goal is to just be opinionated, sure, make a non-sudo thing with a selection of features you personally consider important --- but don't be surprised if people keep using sudo.
  • yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
    Because sudo's full behavior is infamously complex. You might be able to make it better with a rewrite, but you're talking about a massive effort with significant risk, and all to reproduce a system that really should be redesigned to be easier to secure in the first place (hence doas).