zlacker

ArchLinux symlinks /sbin, /bin and /usr/sbin to /usr/bin. And also /lib, /lib64, /usr/lib64 to /usr/lib:

$ ls -la / | grep -e bin -e lib lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Dec 6 23:41 bin -> usr/bin lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Dec 6 23:41 lib -> usr/lib lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Dec 6 23:41 lib64 -> usr/lib lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Dec 6 23:41 sbin -> usr/bin

>>hpb42+(OP)
Same on my (X)Ubuntu 20.04.

>>hpb42+(OP)
I think nearly all Linux distros did this when they adopted systemd. That’s where I first read this argument.

I know RHEL, Debian, and Arch do. Not a lot outside of those families.

>>hpb42+(OP)
I'm actually a bit surprised about `/bin` there. Maybe it's archaic but I've always considered the point of `/bin` to be a minimal set of tools that could allow an otherwise-hosed system to be booted/debugged. So it (and `/lib` and a few other directories) might be on a small, read-only partition while `/usr` and friends are on a much larger read-write partition.

Of course in the last twenty-five years I don't think I've ever really used a system set up like that. But it does seem nice to at least be able to do so.

>>stouse+2n1
I've used to setup my system exactly like that, but that was in 20xx. Since then I've got lazy.

>>stouse+2n1
IIRC, you are correct. And OpenBSD still sets up distinct partitions for `/bin` and `/lib` etc.

The first PC I built had 7 disk drives in a tower case, four distinct hard drives. Yes it was crazy. But the largest of these by far was 540 MB. It made sense to keep the boot stuff on its own hard drive.

Linux has `boot`, of course, but `boot` should never appear in $PATH. I think.