On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 12:06 -0400, Shawn Starr wrote:
>
> There is also a similar case for /usr/bin vs /bin (e.g. some OSs
> traditionally had very stripped down versions of a few command in
> /sbin or /bin, then fuller ones in /usr/bin - trivial example would be
> "vi" of course).
>
This is because /sbin was for 'static' binaries (static-bin).
Urban legend. The "s" in /sbin stands for "system":
from "info standards" (aka GNU standards):
`sbindir'
The directory for installing executable programs that can be run
from the shell, but are only generally useful to system
administrators. This should normally be `/usr/local/sbin', but
write it as `$(exec_prefix)/sbin'. (If you are using Autoconf,
write it as `@sbindir@'.)
See also:
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#SBINSYSTEMBINARIES
It's only the fact that many "system administrator executables" need to
be statically linked which had caused people to believe the "s" would
stand for static.
We needed this back when live CDs didn't exist, or if you
somehow
foobared your GNU libc you had /sbin/sln (static link) to fix a
system, now a days you pop in a CD, chroot to the saddened Linux
system and repair it easily. You used /sbin as your emergency kit and
superuser tools.
The last part of your sentence is the key. /sbin and /usr/sbin
exist to
keep tools out of ordinary users' PATH.
Ralf