This was intended for the list but accidentally got sent to only lina. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Chris Brennan <xa...@xaerolimit.net> Date: Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 12:01 PM Subject: Re: sbin To: lina <lina.lastn...@gmail.com>
On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 11:42 AM, lina <lina.lastn...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Is it safe to add /sbin into PATH? > > Why the default path not include /sbin, > > Thanks with best regards, Typically /bin is reserved for binaries executable by everyone on the system, whereas /sbin is *typically* reserved for binaries that are executable by root only, most of these would typically have the SETUID bit set for root as well, to further prevent non-root users from running them. The same logic would extend to /usr/bin, /usr/sbin, and where the BSD's are concerned, /usr/local/bin and /usr/local/sbin /bin /sbin These two paths are set up and almost always linked to / (that being they reside on the same partition/slice as the root partition,) so then in the event the system cannot mount anything but /, you will have a partially working environment that would contain statically built binaries, allowing you to fix what ever broke and move on. /usr/bin /usr/sbin These two paths are /typically/ used for normal system operation of system-related binaries. /usr/local/bin /usr/local/sbin Some Linux distro's utilize this, but it's the primary install location for BSD related OS's such as FreeBSD, NetBSD and/or OpenBSD (just to name a few). Any user-installed packages, either from binary or source, would get installed to this location, the idea being that the base system doesn't get cluttered and/or tainted by user-installed packages. > -- > Chris Brennan > A: Yes. > >Q: Are you sure? > >>A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. > >>>Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? > http://xkcd.com/84/ | http://xkcd.com/149/ | http://xkcd.com/549/ > GPG: D5B20C0C (6741 8EE4 6C7D 11FB 8DA8 9E4A EECD 9A84 D5B2 0C0C) ------------------------------------------------------------------------
