On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Richard Yao <r...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 07/18/2012 04:10 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >> On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 23:54:16 -0400 >> Richard Yao <r...@gentoo.org> wrote:
[snip] >>> The difference is simple. You put stuff into /sbin when you do not >>> want regular users to be able to select it via tab completion by >>> default. >> >> Now put that definition into my cold logic brain. > > That was meant as a joke, although the irony is that it is true. So, you are rationalizing a posteriori an original irrational decision. Understanding the bin, sbin, usr/bin , usr/sbin split: http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-December/074114.html "The /bin vs /usr/bin split (and all the others) is an artifact of this, a 1970's implementation detail that got carried forward for decades by bureaucrats who never question _why_ they're doing things. It stopped making any sense before Linux was ever invented, for multiple reasons" I don't mind the merge of /bin, /usr/bin, /sbin and /usr/sbin; moreover, I want an even more radical change: /usr -> /System /home -> /Users /etc -> /Config Why should we care about ancient filesystems that didn't supported long paths, and therefore we got stuck with /usr since we didn't wanted to waste another *single* character to make it /user? Let that silly legacy stuff die. Keep symbolic links to the old directories for compatibility reasons, if you want to (modern software should not need it anyhow), and move on. Remember /usr/X11R6? We kept a /usr/X11R6 -> /usr link for years. Do you miss it? I surely not. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
