[doc] passwordless sudo

[desci]

On the page which explains why there is no sudo password, at first there is an explanation in the format of question and answer, made in a theoretical sudoers file's comments.

I think it would be clearer to the reader which paragraphs are questions and which are answers if they are distinctive by introducing two hashes (#) instead of one on the beginning of a line with question.

Edit: Actually not. I've got it all wrong.

[andrewdavidwong]

On the page which explains why there is no sudo password, at first there is an explanation in the format of question and answer, made in a theoretical sudoers file's comments.

Not theoretical, but actual.

But I'm not sure I see the problem. Isn't it only the first line which is a (rather obviously rhetorical) question?

Perhaps you could provide a version of the text with extra #'s where you'd put them?

[andrewdavidwong]

On the page which explains why there is no sudo password, at first there is an explanation in the format of question and answer, made in a theoretical sudoers file's comments.

Not theoretical, but actual.

But I'm not sure I see the problem. Isn't it only the first line which is a (rather obviously rhetorical) question?

Perhaps you could provide a version of the text with extra #'s where you'd put them?

[andrewdavidwong]

Also, note that this is not just a doc issue, because presumably we would want any clarificatory edits to appear in the actual sudoers file, as well.

[andrewdavidwong]

Also, note that this is not just a doc issue, because presumably we would want any clarificatory edits to appear in the actual sudoers file, as well.

[desci]

Isn't it only the first line which is a (rather obviously rhetorical) question?

Indeed, after re-reading the text twice, I've came to the same conclusion.

It just looks like one of my own texts, but after a couple of reads it seems to get the point across and should stay untouched.

The original topic is misleading.

[desci]

Isn't it only the first line which is a (rather obviously rhetorical) question?

Indeed, after re-reading the text twice, I've came to the same conclusion.

It just looks like one of my own texts, but after a couple of reads it seems to get the point across and should stay untouched.

The original topic is misleading.