Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> astronut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I agree. The type of user who is likely to be using the ifconfig
>> command on a regular basis is the type of user who probably already
>> has sbin in their path. (Power user, sysadmin's nonprivleged
>> account, etc.).
>
> Yes. The great majority of users don't want to know about stuff
> like ifconfig, and those that _do_ can either put /sbin in their
> path themselves or just type the damn path when they run the
> command.
>
> I've no clue why some people whine so much about this.
It causes (at least) two types of trivial irritation:
1) on each new system I have to add sbin to my path, usually at the
point where I'm involved in the already irritating exercise of
debugging a network problem
2) when helping someone out, if you ask them to report what
'ifconfig' says then the answer is:
-bash: ifconfig: command not found
If there was a clear benefit to having ifconfig in sbin then these
might be less annoying. But I've yet to hear of one.
There is a small benefit to having a separate sbin at all, in that it
takes a few things out of the namespace for tab completion.
Personally I don't think that outweighs the inconvenience of people
wrongly putting commands like ifconfig and (historically) traceroute
in it.
--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
