On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 09:08 +0200, Ludwig Nussel wrote: > Jonathan Arsenault wrote: > > On Sat, 2007-05-26 at 02:35 +0300, Alexey Eremenko wrote: > > > Anyways, I'm not satisfied. I want to have access to my ifconfig from > > > normal user. > > > > Yes, lets change the UNIX way for the unsatisfied kid ... > > > > Snip from the FHS. > > > > /sbin : System binaries > > Purpose > > Utilities used for system administration (and other root-only commands) > > are stored in /sbin, /usr/sbin, and /usr/local/sbin. > > > > http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#SBINSYSTEMBINARIES > > So what? That doesn't tell anything about whether it makes sense to have sbin > in $PATH.
Yes logic does, if those are root-only command they do not belong into a normal user path. > I'd vote for appending sbin to regular users' $PATH by default. There > are many tools in sbin that can be called as user to display at least some > status information (or even just the help text). The clueless don't use the > shell anyways and therefore don't care. Many tool usable by user in there, like what ? ifconfig and iwlist are the exception and not the rule, ip that a user should use instead of deprecated ifconfig is symlinked to /bin already. Look at the 270'or so binary in /sbin and the 330'or so in /usr/sbin (/opt/gnome/sbin and /opt/kde3/sbin even) and tell me that they belong into a user path, if you think about answering yes to that then explain to me why they needed to be separated in the first place from normal bin. Lets just stuff hem all in a giant directory and be done with it ... -- "Why can't humans just reboot instead of sleeping, so much wasted cycles" -Zombie Coder. Jonathan Arsenault - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - <http://jarpack.net> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
