Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 30th Jan 2012 20:39 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 505226
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
It does make some sort of sense to split /bin and /sbin (or whatever you want to call them: e.g. /userbin vs. /systembin), so that normal users get /bin in their PATH and root gets /bin and /sbin in their PATH.
/usr/bin and /usr/sbin make no sense now of course plus most systems don't partition /usr separately either, so this "binaries won't be available if a non-/ partition isn't mounted" issue doesn't really apply nowadays.
To be honest, /bin and /sbin make sense to me both from the user vs. system split and also that they are about the shortest name they can be that remains somewhat descriptive of their contents.
I've never been too concerned about filing system paths to be honest - the fact that Linux doesn't use ludicrously archaic drive letters for mount points makes it already far superior to Windows already :-)