The strangeness called `sbin'

[Tim Kientzle]

On Nov 13, 2011, at 2:57 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> 
> Actually I think a much more interesting, and likely more useful change
> would be to put everything into /bin. 

I'm really confused, Doug.

You've been vehemently arguing against merging /bin and
/sbin, but here you seem to be claiming that it would be
better to instead merge /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, and /usr/sbin.

Care to clarify?

Personally, I really like Ed's proposal.  In part, that's
from my personal experience of being highly annoyed
whenever I use a Linux system that doesn't put /sbin into
my path.  If I always expect both /bin and /sbin to be in my
path, then just combining them into one directory makes
a whale of a lot of sense.

I agree the transition issues are delicate, but we've
dealt with equally difficult transition issues before.

Tim