4d ago

Dirty Talk

Disclaimer: Do not run this command.

67 comments

Is a woman telling you:
"you can do whatever you like, but so can my Ex your mama and the Dallas cowboys."
Really that much of a male fantasy?
- Yeah, would've been better if she adds you to her sudoers file.

Made me puke in my mouth

I accidentally did this on a work computer, just going with tab completion. Things started to break very quickly. I don't think I could even run sudo or rm lol. Total wash. Had to reinstall (this was on my first week in office - so embarrassing!).

Obligatory DO NOT RUN THIS ON YOUR COMPUTER (or anyone else's).
You'd think with fully open permissions, everything would work better, but many programs, including important low level things, interpret it as a sign of system damage and will refuse to operate instead.
If you do run it, you'd better have a backup or something like Timeshift to bail you out, and even if you do have that, it's not worth trying it just to see what will happen.
It's not quite as bad as deleting everything because you can boot from external media and back up non-system files after the fact, but the system will almost certainly not work properly and need to be repaired.
You have been warned.
- New guy at work ran this to try to fix permissions on his home folder, accidentally ran it on root (both would have been bad)
  Several highly paid and experienced Linux admins finally just gave up and deleted the server and built a new one from the backups.
  
  Which, honestly, is the better way to go. Treat your compute resources like cattle, not pets.
  
  Why does he have rights to use sudo in the first place?
- What exactly does that command do
  
  It sets permissions (ch ange modification rights) on all files (-R = recursive, stepping down through directories) in the file system (hence starting at /) so that they can be read, (re)written and executed as programs by all users (the 777 part). 000 would be no permissions for anyone (except for the root user), which would be just as bad.
  
  gives all users on the system read and write access to any and all files and resources
- One time I introduced someone to Linux then left them to their own devices.
  I returned to them hours later to find out they had gotten annoyed with permissions errors and run chown -R ${THEIRUSER}: /.
  The results were not what they wanted.
  
  A valuable lesson
  
  I did this once by accident (bad scripting, managed to abort it,) it wasn't too bad until sudo told me that the sudoers file had the wrong owner. I then learnt that there are other ways to become root.
  OS ran for another ~6months after I re chowned etc to root.
- I will make a disclaimer. Thanks.
- Someone actually ran it on a server at my workplace, trying to fix file permissions on a samba share. Broke SSH and the samba daemon. Thankfully I was able to fix by removing the permissions from the config files the error logs pointed to.
  Just saying, I think it was a ChatGPT idea, other people use it every day. I only use it if I'm completely stumped, and only take it as suggestions.
- But how else will I make everything work without issues

definitely nsfw

asexuals and demisexuals be like sudo chmod -R 700 /
- Doms with cuck and denial fetishes have partners like
  undefined
  
  sudo chmod -R 077 /
  
  Jesus Christ
  
  What do the funny words mean? (i understand neither 700 & 077)
  
  undefined
  
  sudo chown -R nobody:nobody /
- You and @ArchAengelus@lemmy.dbzer0.com really out did yourselves

I did chmod -R 666 / when I started playing with Linux in 1999. It did not end well.
Sudo didn't really exist back then, you ran things as root like real men. /s
- (sitting cross-legged on the floor drinking a juice box) "How DID it end, grampa?"
  
  6 permission mean read+write, but no execution rights. So you cannot execute any commands and system bricks itself.

Most Linux filesystems, being case sensitive, won't find the SUDO command.
- With alias all things are possible.
  undefined
  
  alias SUDO='sudo rm -fr / --no-preserve-root'
- If you shout at your shell, it refuses to listen
- CHMOD command does not exist either. It's just the meme's font that is in all caps.
- Glad I'm not the only one that thinks like this.

If I wanted Windows perms I would have installed Windows
- Windows perms are pretty locked down though. Sometimes I can't delete my own files because I need permission from "Administrator" :/
  You can actually use Windows-style permissions (ACLs) on Linux via setfacl.
  
  If only...
  Those are POSIX acls, and they suck
  We could have had NFSv4 ACL, of which windows ACLs are a subset. In fact, every other unix os did... Except for Linux, they decided it didn't fit well to Linux. And so we are stuck with UGO permissions, and posix ACLs.

Sorry, that's a huge turn off. Filesystem perms exist for a reason and should be respected
- Yeah, this is modern day slutshaming

Taking the term open sourced to a whole new level!
Everybody has permissions!
- It's still not really open-source until you open up all the ports now don't you think?

Back in my early days of Linux I ran this exact command, I forget why, but for some reason my WiFi stopped working immediately after and then SELinux started yelling at me for some reason. I tried to fix SELinux and most certainly commited an innumerable amount of cardinal sins.
I had to reinstall whatever distro I was running at the time