On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 07:51:55PM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2015, William Hubbs wrote:
> 
> > From what I've read, the traditional difference between bin and sbin
> > was that sbin means static-bin and everything stored in there was to
> > be able to come up without libraries.
> 
> Source/reference for this?
 
 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3519952

> > As mgorny was talking about earlier, a good chunk of what is in sbin
> > *can* be run by normal users.
> 
> Then it shouldn't be in sbin, in the first place. That's a separate
> discussion though.

 Also, there is another source that talks about why the split originally
 happened and why it meant basically nothing, even before the days of
 Linux.

 http://www.osnews.com/story/25556/Understanding_the_bin_sbin_usr_bin_usr_sbin_Split/

William