Return to Question

I can't count the number of times I've seen bashing of answers which contain:

gksu gedit /rootpath/rootfile.conf

Yesterday (February 17, 2018) Live Wire updated an article on how to setup gksu. The author acknowledges that gksu is frowned upon but claims no viable alternative is available for the GUI.

So should we tone down bashing people who do use gksu? Or tone down bashing of anything else for that matter when there is no viable alternative? Don't get me wrong, I like to bash politicians from time to time so I'm not totally against bashing.

FTR I did setup a wrapper script called gsu which invoked policy kits to call gedit and nautilus under Ubuntu 16.04 but can understand how not everyone will do that.

##Rolled-up comments

Mr. Ward recommended pkexec which I use in my gsu wrapper script to replace gksu. But do we want to revisit every Q&A >= Ubuntu 16.04 containing gksu and explain how to setup Policy Kits?

Ms. Zanna recommended sudo -H gedit ... and I have seen that recommended a couple of times when someone is using gksu. But again who wants to post that comment on all the Q&A's >= Ubuntu 14.04 (the historical version not EOL) that reference gksu?

It's important to note I'm not going around promoting gksu gedit because I've been chastised for that in the past. Now I just say "using your favorite editor with sudo powers edit this file". It is the article above that is promoting gksu. Due to this new promotion you will see more new users using gksu.

So it is yesterday's article promoting gksu (and not me!) begging the question should we be "tone down" bashing people who use gksu in their question or answer? Old timers know better than to say gksu but new people don't and we should be embracing new users and not making them feel unwelcome.

Maybe there is a Q&A already of substitutes to gksu we can link-reference via comment section as a subtle hint instead?

I started out on punch-cards and then moved up to text based IBM and DEC VAX monochrome green or amber terminals before finally landing in this 32-bit colour, Full HD, GUI-Universe. Personally I quite like the new GUI-verse and only use nano or crontab -e when I absolutely have to.

That said I don't want to be the punching bag for everyone else that likes gedit :)

I can't count the number of times I've seen bashing of answers which contain:

gksu gedit /rootpath/rootfile.conf

Yesterday (February 17, 2018) Live Wire updated an article on how to setup gksu. The author acknowledges that gksu is frowned upon but claims no viable alternative is available for the GUI.

So should we tone down bashing people who do use gksu? Or tone down bashing of anything else for that matter when there is no viable alternative? Don't get me wrong, I like to bash politicians from time to time so I'm not totally against bashing.

FTR I did setup a wrapper script called gsu which invoked policy kits to call gedit and nautilus under Ubuntu 16.04 but can understand how not everyone will do that.

Rolled-up comments

Mr. Ward recommended pkexec which I use in my gsu wrapper script to replace gksu. But do we want to revisit every Q&A >= Ubuntu 16.04 containing gksu and explain how to setup Policy Kits?

Ms. Zanna recommended sudo -H gedit ... and I have seen that recommended a couple of times when someone is using gksu. But again who wants to post that comment on all the Q&A's >= Ubuntu 14.04 (the historical version not EOL) that reference gksu?

It's important to note I'm not going around promoting gksu gedit because I've been chastised for that in the past. Now I just say "using your favorite editor with sudo powers edit this file". It is the article above that is promoting gksu. Due to this new promotion you will see more new users using gksu.

So it is yesterday's article promoting gksu (and not me!) begging the question should we be "tone down" bashing people who use gksu in their question or answer? Old timers know better than to say gksu but new people don't and we should be embracing new users and not making them feel unwelcome.

Maybe there is a Q&A already of substitutes to gksu we can link-reference via comment section as a subtle hint instead?

I started out on punch-cards and then moved up to text based IBM and DEC VAX monochrome green or amber terminals before finally landing in this 32-bit colour, Full HD, GUI-Universe. Personally I quite like the new GUI-verse and only use nano or crontab -e when I absolutely have to.

That said I don't want to be the punching bag for everyone else that likes gedit :)

I can't count the number of times I've seen bashing of answers which contain:

gksu gedit /rootpath/rootfile.conf

Yesterday (February 17, 2018) Live Wire updated an article on how to setup gksu. The author acknowledges that gksu is frowned upon but claims no viable alternative is available for the GUI.

So should we tone down bashing people who do use gksu? Or tone down bashing of anything else for that matter when there is no viable alternative? Don't get me wrong, I like to bash politicians from time to time so I'm not totally against bashing.

FTR I did setup a wrapper script called gsu which invoked policy kits to call gedit and nautilus under Ubuntu 16.04 but can understand how not everyone will do that.

##Rolled-up comments

Mr. Ward recommended pkexec which I use in my gsu wrapper script to replace gksu. But do we want to revisit every Q&A >= Ubuntu 16.04 containing gksu and explain how to setup Policy Kits?

Ms. Zanna recommended sudo -h gedit ... and I have seen that recommended a couple of times when someone is using gksu. But again who wants to post that comment on all the Q&A's >= Ubuntu 14.04 (the historical version not EOL) that reference gksu?

It's important to note I'm not going around promoting gksu gedit because I've been chastised for that in the past. Now I just say "using your favorite editor with sudo powers edit this file". It is the article above that is promoting gksu. Due to this new promotion you will see more new users using gksu.

So it is yesterday's article promoting gksu (and not me!) begging the question should we be "tone down" bashing people who use gksu in their question or answer? Old timers know better than to say gksu but new people don't and we should be embracing new users and not making them feel unwelcome.

Maybe there is a Q&A already of substitutes to gksu we can link-reference via comment section as a subtle hint instead?

I started out on punch-cards and then moved up to text based IBM and DEC VAX monochrome green or amber terminals before finally landing in this 32-bit colour, Full HD, GUI-Universe. Personally I quite like the new GUI-verse and only use nano or crontab -e when I absolutely have to.

That said I don't want to be the punching bag for everyone else that likes gedit :)

I can't count the number of times I've seen bashing of answers which contain:

gksu gedit /rootpath/rootfile.conf

Yesterday (February 17, 2018) Live Wire updated an article on how to setup gksu. The author acknowledges that gksu is frowned upon but claims no viable alternative is available for the GUI.

So should we tone down bashing people who do use gksu? Or tone down bashing of anything else for that matter when there is no viable alternative? Don't get me wrong, I like to bash politicians from time to time so I'm not totally against bashing.

FTR I did setup a wrapper script called gsu which invoked policy kits to call gedit and nautilus under Ubuntu 16.04 but can understand how not everyone will do that.

##Rolled-up comments

Mr. Ward recommended pkexec which I use in my gsu wrapper script to replace gksu. But do we want to revisit every Q&A >= Ubuntu 16.04 containing gksu and explain how to setup Policy Kits?

Ms. Zanna recommended sudo -H gedit ... and I have seen that recommended a couple of times when someone is using gksu. But again who wants to post that comment on all the Q&A's >= Ubuntu 14.04 (the historical version not EOL) that reference gksu?

It's important to note I'm not going around promoting gksu gedit because I've been chastised for that in the past. Now I just say "using your favorite editor with sudo powers edit this file". It is the article above that is promoting gksu. Due to this new promotion you will see more new users using gksu.

So it is yesterday's article promoting gksu (and not me!) begging the question should we be "tone down" bashing people who use gksu in their question or answer? Old timers know better than to say gksu but new people don't and we should be embracing new users and not making them feel unwelcome.

Maybe there is a Q&A already of substitutes to gksu we can link-reference via comment section as a subtle hint instead?

I started out on punch-cards and then moved up to text based IBM and DEC VAX monochrome green or amber terminals before finally landing in this 32-bit colour, Full HD, GUI-Universe. Personally I quite like the new GUI-verse and only use nano or crontab -e when I absolutely have to.

That said I don't want to be the punching bag for everyone else that likes gedit :)

I can't count the number of times I've seen bashing of answers which contain:

gksu gedit /rootpath/rootfile.conf

Yesterday (February 17, 2018) Live Wire updated an article on how to setup gksu. The author acknowledges that gksu is frowned upon but claims no viable alternative is available for the GUI.

So should we tone down bashing people who do use gksu? Or tone down bashing of anything else for that matter when there is no viable alternative? Don't get me wrong, I like to bash politicians from time to time so I'm not totally against bashing.

FTR I did setup a wrapper script called gsu which invoked policy kits to call gedit and nautilus under Ubuntu 16.04 but can understand how not everyone will do that.

I can't count the number of times I've seen bashing of answers which contain:

gksu gedit /rootpath/rootfile.conf

Yesterday (February 17, 2018) Live Wire updated an article on how to setup gksu. The author acknowledges that gksu is frowned upon but claims no viable alternative is available for the GUI.

So should we tone down bashing people who do use gksu? Or tone down bashing of anything else for that matter when there is no viable alternative? Don't get me wrong, I like to bash politicians from time to time so I'm not totally against bashing.

FTR I did setup a wrapper script called gsu which invoked policy kits to call gedit and nautilus under Ubuntu 16.04 but can understand how not everyone will do that.

##Rolled-up comments

Mr. Ward recommended pkexec which I use in my gsu wrapper script to replace gksu. But do we want to revisit every Q&A >= Ubuntu 16.04 containing gksu and explain how to setup Policy Kits?

Ms. Zanna recommended sudo -h gedit ... and I have seen that recommended a couple of times when someone is using gksu. But again who wants to post that comment on all the Q&A's >= Ubuntu 14.04 (the historical version not EOL) that reference gksu?

It's important to note I'm not going around promoting gksu gedit because I've been chastised for that in the past. Now I just say "using your favorite editor with sudo powers edit this file". It is the article above that is promoting gksu. Due to this new promotion you will see more new users using gksu.

So it is yesterday's article promoting gksu (and not me!) begging the question should we be "tone down" bashing people who use gksu in their question or answer? Old timers know better than to say gksu but new people don't and we should be embracing new users and not making them feel unwelcome.

Maybe there is a Q&A already of substitutes to gksu we can link-reference via comment section as a subtle hint instead?

I started out on punch-cards and then moved up to text based IBM and DEC VAX monochrome green or amber terminals before finally landing in this 32-bit colour, Full HD, GUI-Universe. Personally I quite like the new GUI-verse and only use nano or crontab -e when I absolutely have to.

That said I don't want to be the punching bag for everyone else that likes gedit :)