Aaron Kulkis wrote:
Bill Anderson wrote:
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
Bill Anderson wrote:
Bob S wrote:
Hello SuSE users,
While searching for files in /usr/bin I noticed something that
seems odd to me. There is a folder in there named X11. It is a
link to the same folder. If you open it, it shows the exact same
thing as /usr/bin. You can continue opening the X11 directory
until you have a /usr/bin//X11/X11/X11/X11 file open on
ad-infitum. They all show the exact same files and megabytes.
What is this? Can somebody explain the purpose?
Bob S
Not sure of the reason, but it only impacts on the logical path pwd
-L. The physical path (pwd -P) remains as /usr/bin. The impact is
to have all X11 binaries appear in /usr/bin instead of
/usr/bin/X11. Like many symbolic links, it makes the applications
happy even when the underlying structure changes. For those of us
who use UNIX, we are used to /bin being a symbolic link to /usr/bin,
since when? there are several programs which have always
been in /bin because they are needed in runlevel 0 and
run level S, neither of which have /usr mounted, but which
are not administrative only, (and thus do NOT reside in
/sbin or /usr/sbin).
Since the early 1990s, /bin has been a symbolic link to /usr/bin. If
you go to runlevel S, you will find that there are a minimal number
of utilities in /usr/bin. These are hidden if you have a separate
mount for /usr. The intent was for /usr to be a static directory.
I think you're on drugs:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/> ls -al /
total 112
drwxr-xr-x 23 root root 4096 2007-12-18 15:26 .
drwxr-xr-x 23 root root 4096 2007-12-18 15:26 ..
drwx------ 2 root root 4096 2007-01-09 05:54 .gnupg
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 6 2007-04-23 12:24 K00ntp -> ../ntp
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 6 2007-04-23 12:24 S99ntp -> ../ntp
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 2006-12-27 11:39 bin
drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 4096 2006-12-27 11:39 boot
drwxr-xr-x 11 root root 7880 2008-01-07 01:32 dev
drwxr-xr-x 120 root root 8192 2008-01-07 05:34 etc
drwxr-xr-x 31 root root 4096 2007-12-15 20:17 home
drwxr-xr-x 11 root root 4096 2006-12-27 11:39 lib
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 11 2006-12-26 10:58 local -> /home/local
drwx------ 2 root root 16384 2006-12-26 08:38 lost+found
drwxr-xr-x 6 root root 4096 2008-01-07 05:31 media
drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 4096 2007-07-15 12:36 mnt
drwxr-xr-x 17 root root 4096 2008-01-05 00:12 opt
dr-xr-xr-x 290 root root 0 2008-01-07 01:22 proc
drwx------ 25 root root 4096 2008-01-07 01:32 root
drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 8192 2006-12-27 11:43 sbin
drwxr-xr-x 5 root root 4096 2006-12-26 09:31 srv
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 2006-04-22 22:25 subdomain
drwxr-xr-x 11 root root 0 2008-01-07 01:22 sys
drwxrwxrwt 133 root root 16384 2008-01-07 15:00 tmp
drwxr-xr-x 12 root root 151 2006-12-26 09:02 usr
drwxr-xr-x 15 root root 4096 2006-12-27 11:35 var
drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 4096 2006-12-26 08:38 windows
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/>
examples being: cp, chown, dd, grep, awk, cat, chmod, chgrp,
date, kill, ln, ls, mount, umount, rm, rmdir, sed, stty,
tar, shells (sh/ksh/csh/tcsh/bash), false, true, uname,
ed, ex, vi
I think you need to get on a Unix box, and check out the actual
structure. Linux has never followed this path, and holds to the old
Unix structure. I have been working with Unix since 1978, and have
been through a number of file structure changes.
Which Unix vendors made this change?
The point is that symbolic links are used to for backwards
compatibility.
Yes, I realize that.
As a side light, a number of the utilities that you mention are now
shell built-ins, which take precedence over the equivalent command.
For example, pwd is a built-in that has the -L and -P options for ksh
and bash.
Primarily because forking off a shell, then execing a new
executable, just to print the name of the working directory
is a waste, and belongs in the shell.
/bin/pwd was basically a patch for a deficiency in the
early versions of sh and ksh.
Csh and tcsh have always had $cwd (current working directory)
> The /usr/bin command does not have these options, and exists for
Bourne shell compatibility. You might also note that under Linux it
is /usr/bin/sh, /usr/bin/ksh, and /bin/bash.
Now I know you're on drugs:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/> which sh
/bin/sh
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/> which ksh
/usr/bin/ksh
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/> which bash
/bin/bash
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/> ls -al `which sh`
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 2006-12-26 08:43 /bin/sh -> bash
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/> ls -al `which ksh`
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 12 2006-12-27 11:39 /usr/bin/ksh -> /lib/ast/ksh
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/> ls -al `which bash`
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 501804 2006-04-22 21:46 /bin/bash
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/>
Most people are not aware that the default behavior for ksh and bash
is to show the logical path, so that cd .. behaves as expected. It is
the shell that tracks the logical path. The system calls still refer
to the physical path, as does /bin/pwd. For those interested in
understanding this behavior try cd -P /usr/tmp and then do the pwd
command. The shell built-in for cd also support the -P and -L options.
Bill Anderson
WW7BA
Sorry kid, you are just way to young as you obviously belong to the drug
generation. You could have at least had the courtesy of stating the
system from which you derived the above listings. As they don't match
either AIX or Solaris. It does appear that ksh was installed separately,
as it appears under /lib/ast.
Insults are much easier than courtesy.
Bill Anderson
WW7BA
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
