| 1 |
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 07:51:55PM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
> >>>>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2015, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > From what I've read, the traditional difference between bin and sbin |
| 5 |
> > was that sbin means static-bin and everything stored in there was to |
| 6 |
> > be able to come up without libraries. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Source/reference for this? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3519952 |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> > As mgorny was talking about earlier, a good chunk of what is in sbin |
| 13 |
> > *can* be run by normal users. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Then it shouldn't be in sbin, in the first place. That's a separate |
| 16 |
> discussion though. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Also, there is another source that talks about why the split originally |
| 19 |
happened and why it meant basically nothing, even before the days of |
| 20 |
Linux. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
http://www.osnews.com/story/25556/Understanding_the_bin_sbin_usr_bin_usr_sbin_Split/ |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
William |
Archives