On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 12:02:20PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Am Dienstag 25 Oktober 2005 09:49 schrieb Francesco Scaglioni
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > ... Seems as if ~/bin was being looked at prior to the shared
> > bin.
>
> on an old *nix system the order was /usr/(s)bin /usr/local/(s)bin. So
> you always end up with the commands the admin configured. On newer
> (Linux) systems the order changed: ~/bin /usr/local/bin /usr/bin
> to give programms that the user installed a chance.
> The old fashion is more secure and suitable for a multiuser (server)
> system, the newer fashion is really usefull for a single user (home
> user) system.
I disagree. No user has to have write access to /usr/local. If users can
write into any directory in the default path: shoot the admin.
Would you like to explain why you think it is more secure that /usr
takes precedence over /usr/local[0]? This would make it very hard for
the admin to 'replace' commands without altering the installed files.
There is a lot of sense in having the order something like
$HOME/bin;/urs/local/bin;/bin, and there is no other risk than that a
user might shoot himself (and not others) in the foot. You might however
argue about having $HOME/bin in there, I grant you that. And *sbin* does
not belong into a users PATH by default, IMHO.
Rasmus
[0] I tend to think that it always was /usr/local over /usr, in the
history of Unix, but am not historian enough to be able to prove it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
