🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 06 Jun 2018 09:35:38 GMT, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
<ste...@eircom.net> wrote: 

> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 20:51:40 -0600
> Grant Taylor <gta...@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 06/05/2018 11:16 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> > Somewhere around SVR4.   Originally it was for statically-linked
>> > binaries that were required when /usr was a mount point and libs.so
>> > was under /usr/lib.
> 
>      That accords with my understanding - it has changed since.
> 
>> I'm not tracking why /sbin was created to deal with things under
>> /usr. 
>> 
>> Was /bin a sym-link to /usr/bin before this?  I thought that was a 
>> Solaris thing.
> 
>      I think it was, /bin and /usr/bin are still quite distinct in
> FreeBSD and Centos 6 (OK still is a bit string for Centos 6).
> 
>> I get needing dependent libraries or static linking.  But I would
>> have thought that any libraries that things in /bin needed would be
>> in /lib. 
> 
>      Yep, and the stuff in /sbin is dynamically linked now. There's
> a /rescue with a statically linked all-in-one (like busybox) with 144
> links for use when things are really hosed.
> 
>> I always viewed /(root) and /usr and /usr/local as three very
>> distinct hierarchies.  (That's part of why the /bin sym-link to
>> /usr/bin bugged me so much.)
> 
>      Agreed, one of the things I like about FreeBSD is that this
> distinction is still maintained.
> 

Having come from the "simpler" DOS world of total control, with maybe 
just a path to c:\utils, I found it a puzzle that there were so many 
places (yet only those ones!) to put executables under linux.

-- 
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.