On Sunday 06 January 2008 15:52, Bill Anderson wrote: > For those of us who use UNIX, we are used to /bin > being a symbolic link to /usr/bin
I admit it's been a while (~1999) since I last used a Unix (not Linux) machine, but back in the time when I did every single kind of Unix I knew had /bin and /usr/bin in separate places. /bin (essential commands and at least one shell) is required to be on the root file system, while /usr/bin (most other commands) might be on another file system. Having /bin as a symlink pointing to /usr/bin would defeat this strategy; you could no longer have /usr on a separate file system / partition. Booting up the system would fail because boot scripts would not be able to use /bin/sh, for example. This just raised my curiosity. Can somebody who actually has access to a Solaris or AIX or HP-UX machine please shed some light on this? Are the major Unix vendors really forcing /usr to be on the root file system? For Linux, see also the File System Hierarchy (FHS) standard: http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html CU -- Stefan Hundhammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Penguin by conviction. YaST2 Development SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Nürnberg, Germany -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
