Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

* Erik Trulsson <ertr1013_at_student.uu.se> [031116 23:21]:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 07:24:00PM -0700, Brent Jones wrote:
> > This is just a case of OS evolution.  /sbin used to be the place where 
> > the statically linked recovery things would be placed, in case the 
> > shared libraries got hosed.  The only things that needed to be 
> > statically linked though, were system utilities, which is why people 
> > probably started to associate the "s" with system, rather than static.
> > 
> > When this happened, you started to see the duplicates that used to 
> > exist in /bin (or /usr/bin) and /sbin disappear.  Since you still need 
> > a place to have statically linked recovery utilities, /rescue was 
> > created.  Now you see the duplicates in /bin (or /usr/bin) and /rescue 
> > instead.
> 
> Do you have any references for this?  Every single place that I can
> find explains /sbin as "system binaries".  I have also never heard of
> there ever being duplicates in /bin of the files in /sbin.

Also, wouldn't the names 'bin' and 'sbin' pre-date the existiance of
dynamically linked binaries?  AFAIK the primary difference between the
two was the /bin was typically in a user's PATH and /sbin was not.

--Mike