sudo versus doas (opendoas)
TL;DR
* If you need power, flexibility, and universal compatibility → stay with sudo.
* If you prefer lean, mean, and less to go wrong → give doas a spin.
Whichever you pick, remember: the real power isn’t the command you run, it’s the judgment you apply before you hit Enter. Keep experimenting, stay curious, and own your admin choices! 🚀
The Heavyweight: sudo
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| History & Adoption | Born in the early ’90s, sudo is the de‑facto standard on most Linux distros and BSDs. It’s battle‑tested, heavily audited, and supported by a massive community. |
| Feature Set | Extremely feature‑rich: fine‑grained per‑command permissions, logging, authentication timestamps, SELinux integration, plugin architecture, and more. |
| Configuration | Uses /etc/sudoers (or files under /etc/sudoers.d). The syntax is powerful but can be verbose and tricky; a misplaced comma can lock you out. |
| Security Model | By default, requires the invoking user’s password (or can be set to NOPASSWD). Supports “lecture” warnings, authentication retries, and timestamp caching. |
| Performance | Slightly heavier because it parses a large policy file and forks a helper process. In practice the overhead is negligible for interactive use. |
| Portability | Works everywhere—from tiny embedded devices to massive server farms. Most tutorials assume sudo. |
Bottom line: If you need granular control, audit trails, or you’re working in an environment where everyone already knows sudo, stick with it. It’s the Swiss Army knife of privilege escalation.
The Lightweight Challenger: doas
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Origin | Developed by OpenBSD as a simpler, safer alternative to sudo. It’s deliberately minimalistic. |
| Feature Set | Stripped down to the essentials: run a command as another user (default root). No per‑command whitelists, no timestamps, no fancy plugins. |
| Configuration | One tiny file: /etc/doas.conf. Syntax is straightforward—think “allow user X to run anything as root”. Example: permit :wheel or permit nopass :wheel. |
| Security Model | By default, requires the invoking user’s password unlessyou specify nopass. Because the codebase is tiny, the attack surface is smaller, which many security‑focused folks love. |
| Performance | Faster startup (les parsing) and a smaller binary (~30 KB). On low‑resource systems the difference is noticeable. |
| Portability | Primarily shipped with OpenBSD, but ports exist for Linux, NetBSD, and a few other *nixes. Not as universally pre‑installed as sudo. |
Bottom line: If you crave simplicity, want a tiny, auditable binary, and don’t need the bells and whistles, doas is the sleek, no‑nonsense option. It’s the minimalist’s dream—“just works” for most everyday admin tasks.
When to Choose Which?
| Situation | Recommended Tool |
|---|---|
| *Enterprise environments with complex policies | sudo (granular ACLs, logging, existing toling) |
| Security‑hardening where a tiny codebase matters | doas (smaller attack surface) |
| *Systems with limited storage or memory (IoT, containers) | doas (tiny footprint) |
| Cross‑distribution scripts/tutorials | sudo (everyone expects it) |
| *You just want something that “just works” without a manual | doas (simple config, less to break) |
A Quick Word‑play Wrap‑Up
Think of sudo as the *Swiss watchmaker—complex, precise, and built for every conceivable scenario. doas is the digital watch—clean, lightweight, and gets the job done without the extra gears. Both keep time, but one does it with more flair.