[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: traceroute in /usr/bin, not /usr/sbin

On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Keith G. Murphy wrote:

[FHS's definition for /sbin-programs]

> As a system administrator (IANADD), I find it a very good definition. 
> Why?  It's completely operational in nature: unless I change something,
> if an ordinary user wants to run, say, traceroute, he can't, because
> it's in /usr/sbin and not /usr/bin.  So this:
> 'if a normal (not a system adminstrator) user will ever run it directly,
> then it must
> be placed in one of the "bin" directories'
> is literally true, barring symlinks, changing PATH, etc.


Saying that an ordinary user cannot run a program in [/usr]/sbin is simply  
incorrect. He can. The question is what he'd be doing when he runs a
program from /sbin. When running ifconfig, he'd be doing system
administration tasks (why else would you need the IP address *when you're 
already logged on to that machine*?)

When running traceroute, you'd be doing network administration
tasks. Which is simply not the same as system administration.

The difference here is: you're thinking as a user that wants to run the
program. I'm thinking as someone that has to decide where a program needs
to be.

> I would argue that the FHS definition reflects the practical effects of
> placement of the programs, rather than some attempt to define them in
> human language terms.  I don't understand why folks are getting hung up
> on whether they're "primarily" "administration tools".
> WRT the example, defining chopsticks as "Chinese utensils" has no
> operational effect on whether I can use them, but putting them in a box
> that by default only Chinese people would be able to look in sure would.

Anyway. I'm sick of this discussion. Let's cut it ;-)

wouter dot verhelst at advalvas in belgium

Try does not exist. Believe that you will do it, else you will fail.

       -- Luke Skywalker,
       in the trilogy "The Jedi Academy", Kevin J. Anderson

Reply to: