On 13 Jun 2005 10:11:52 +0100, Richard Kettlewell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > astronut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > 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.
Probably because there's no solid reason against a symlink. > 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. I guess in situations where /sbin is available but /bin isn't (for whatever reason). > 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. On my system, if* matches only if as non-root user. I doubt namespace 'pollution' is an issue. > 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] > >
