On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 11:42 AM, lina
<lina.lastname@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)
------------------------------------------------------------------------