[SLE] Re: /sbin vs /bin was Re: back to static compiled applications ?
As a "Systems Engineer" from the mid '70's I wasn't going to answer this,
but it's been going on too long and it's clear that few understand the
meaning of the word System as it was then against what it means now.
/bin was for bin files that are processor specific - ie there the same on
whatever platform providing the processing device uses the same commandset.
/sbin was added to separate those bin files that were "system specific" and
had to be created for each system's individual configuration.
Now, I need to define "system" to complete the statement.
A System was considered to contain all parts of the Machine that had been
built to process the data. It included all i/o devices (including all
storage devices), all control devices (including what we now call bios,
VLSI, mapping devices, etc) and of course the processor configuration being
used.
Also in those early days, we didn't consider Minicomputers and Mainframes
any different, they were just different configuration systems. Minicomputers
were often used as front ends to package what was sent from very dumb
devices into a reasonably tight pack for transmission across very expensive
300baud lines to a Mainframe for processing. And even today you will
ususally find a processor or two handling i/o compression so the main
processors time is not wasted.
Oh, where did those days go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I hope this helps everyone.
csijon
-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Barnett
I always heard it stood for "S(ystem)BIN(aries)" that or "S(melly)BIN"
I've read in books that it was a place for programs used by su/root, so they added the "s".
Koos Pol wrote:
At 13:41 03/07/00, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Koos Pol wrote:
The -s- in /sbin is for "static"
This is a common misinterpretation of the 's' in "/sbin" The 's' stands for "system"
Now I wasn't an admin in the 70's or 80's yet, so I can't speak from experience, but a least this is not what I have learned in my SVR4
course.
My course says the -s- is for "statically". At this this guy
(http://x71.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=500170437&CONTEXT=962630392.80
046616&hitnum=112)
seems to agree with me :-)
Also, some more pointers: http://www.enteract.com/~lspitz/armoring.html http://www.yggdrasil.com/bible/bible-src/sag-0.2/sag/node9.html
And now if I could only find the original remarks at Bell Labs when
1 they
where firing it all up... :-)
Cheers,
Koos Pol
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq
As a "Systems Engineer" from the mid '70's I wasn't going to answer this, but it's been going on too long and it's clear that few understand the meaning of the word System as it was then against what it means now.
Thanks for explaining the origin of this. Seems like a logical systems choice. Ed -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq
At 03:19 07/07/00, scsijon wrote: [everything snipped] Thank you very much for your clearing this thing up! Koos Pol ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S.C. Pol T: +31 20 3116122 Systems Administrator F: +31 20 3116200 Compuware Europe B.V. E: koos_pol@nl.compuware.com Amsterdam PGP public key available -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq
participants (3)
-
edscott＠worldnet.att.net -
koos.pol＠nl.compuware.com -
scsijon＠net2000.com.au