On Tue, 16 Apr 2002, at 9:54am, Bayard Coolidge USG wrote: > Dan Coutu mentioned that /sbin is Standalone BINary.
I've almost always seen it expanded as "system binary", but if you're building a system, I suppose you can say it stands for whatever you want. I once had a guy at UNH tell me it stood for "static binary", since all the binaries in /sbin were statically linked under OSF/1 (and Digital UNIX, and, I suspect, Tru64 Unix). And who knows, for OSF/1, that may be right. But not for your average Linux, where darn near everything is dynamically linked. > The difference between /bin and /usr/bin is, I believe, that /bin is > inhabited by system-level binaries, whereas /usr/bin are primarily > commands that ordinary users would run. No, regular users make use of /bin often enough (ls, sh, cp, and mv all live there, for example). The most common explanation I have heard for /bin vs /usr/bin is that /bin includes everything needed to get the system running to the point where it can repair and mount the /usr filesystem. -- Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | ***************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *****************************************************************
