[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       busybox
Subject:    Re: Understanding the bin, sbin, usr/bin , usr/sbin split
From:       Allan Clark <allanc () chickenandporn ! com>
Date:       2010-12-27 5:06:39
Message-ID: CFCE143D-ECE4-4B83-AD10-5F767F48914E () chickenandporn ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On 2010-12-27, at 11:11, Christopher Barry <christopher.barry@rackwareinc.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 2010-12-27 at 03:26 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> > On Thursday 09 December 2010 16:45, Rob Landley wrote:
> > > The /bin vs /usr/bin split (and all the others) is an artifact of this, a 
> > > 1970's implementation detail that got carried forward for decades by 
> > > bureaucrats who never question _why_ they're doing things.[...]
> Actually, there are other good historical reasons, and they have nothing
> to do with Bureaucrats :) Disks were very expensive. The core system
> binaries were located in /bin and /sbin. /usr and /home were often nfs
> mounted from a central location housing non-core binaries, manuals,
> source trees, user data and other shared stuff.

This still happens with embedded devices where a larger filesystem takes longer to \
mount. Replace "NFS" with "JFFS2".

It still nicely demarcates the "Base OS" stuff from the "App" stuff just as it did \
way back when the /etc/init.d arguments were happening in SysV.

Of course, you can argue that /opt/K/{corp}/{app}/{ver}/ was better to keep stuff \
separated by package add/remove, but that complexity was only ever warranted for big \
servers.

Please consider keeping /bin and /sbin as bootstrap for the OS and /usr/* 

Allan
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]