On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 07:51:55PM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > >>>>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2015, William Hubbs wrote: > > > From what I've read, the traditional difference between bin and sbin > > was that sbin means static-bin and everything stored in there was to > > be able to come up without libraries. > > Source/reference for this? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3519952
> > As mgorny was talking about earlier, a good chunk of what is in sbin > > *can* be run by normal users. > > Then it shouldn't be in sbin, in the first place. That's a separate > discussion though. Also, there is another source that talks about why the split originally happened and why it meant basically nothing, even before the days of Linux. http://www.osnews.com/story/25556/Understanding_the_bin_sbin_usr_bin_usr_sbin_Split/ William
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
