What's the difference between 'sudo [command]' and 'sudo sh [command]?

Solution 1:

If the file is not marked as executable you need to call a command shell interpreter to execute it.

Examples:

• sudo sh foo will open foo with sh using sudo privileges.

• sudo bash foo will open foo with bash using sudo privileges.

• sh foo will open foo with sh using your user's privileges.

• bash foo will open foo with bash using your user's privileges.

If you mark a file as executable you just need to call it with ./foo and because it is marked as such it will be read with the defined command shell interpreter and executed without the need to define one.

ls -F will list files and mark executables with *.

To enable the execute bit on a file (and make it executable as such) use the command chmod +x foo.

In your case to make the file you are using executable you would then use the command

chmod +x VMware-Workstation-9.0.1-894247.x86_64.bundle

and then you will be able to run it with either

sudo sh ./VMware-Workstation-9.0.1-894247.x86_64.bundle or just by typing sudo ./VMware-Workstation-9.0.1-894247.x86_64.bundle.

Solution 2:

Sh is a shell for running commands, so executing sh with sudo gives you a root shell. This means all commands in that shell are executed as root. My guess is that script executes something else that needs root, however when you only use sudo not sudo sh, that something else gets executed as a normal user, however with sh everything will be executed as root.