Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 30th Jan 2012 20:39 UTC
General Unix Finally something really interesting to talk about. If you've used UNIX or any of its derivatives, you've probably wondered why there's /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin in the file system. You may even have a rationalisation for the existence of each and every one of these directories. The thing is, though - all these rationalisations were thought up after these directories were created. As it turns out, the real reasoning is pretty damn straightforward.
Thread beginning with comment 505207
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Between K&R and today..
by brynet on Mon 30th Jan 2012 22:55 UTC in reply to "Between K&R and today.."
Member since:

It is annoying, supposedly Linux distributions no longer include static binaries for /bin and /sbin.

They were typically required on Unix systems for single-user mode.

Someone told me that static glibc has been broken for many years now.

No wonder Linux folks don't understand the reasoning behind /{,s}bin and /usr/{,s}bin.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Between K&R and today..
by Lennie on Tue 31st Jan 2012 12:14 in reply to "RE: Between K&R and today.."
Lennie Member since:

Statically linked just isn't as useful anymore, with chroot and initrd on Linux you don't really need it.

That is why it kinda got into disarray.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Between K&R and today..
by cjcoats on Tue 31st Jan 2012 13:26 in reply to "RE[2]: Between K&R and today.."
cjcoats Member since:

When your mission critical apps die because some *&*$)&^ vendor screws up testing on a revised shared object library, you damned well wish you were able to have a fully tested statically linked version.

Reply Parent Score: 1