Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 16:08:19 -0800 From: Tim Kientzle <tim@kientzle.com> To: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> Cc: Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl>, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The strangeness called `sbin' Message-ID: <F5AA9108-8715-43B2-AE64-8A0B5E10657C@kientzle.com> In-Reply-To: <4EC04B65.4030801@FreeBSD.org> References: <20111110123919.GF2164@hoeg.nl> <4EBC4B6E.4060607@FreeBSD.org> <20111111112821.GP2164@hoeg.nl> <4EBDC06F.6020907@FreeBSD.org> <20111112103918.GV2164@hoeg.nl> <4EBF0003.3060401@FreeBSD.org> <20111113091940.GX2164@hoeg.nl> <4EC04B65.4030801@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Nov 13, 2011, at 2:57 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > > Actually I think a much more interesting, and likely more useful change > would be to put everything into /bin. I'm really confused, Doug. You've been vehemently arguing against merging /bin and /sbin, but here you seem to be claiming that it would be better to instead merge /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, and /usr/sbin. Care to clarify? Personally, I really like Ed's proposal. In part, that's from my personal experience of being highly annoyed whenever I use a Linux system that doesn't put /sbin into my path. If I always expect both /bin and /sbin to be in my path, then just combining them into one directory makes a whale of a lot of sense. I agree the transition issues are delicate, but we've dealt with equally difficult transition issues before. Tim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?F5AA9108-8715-43B2-AE64-8A0B5E10657C>