Subject: Re: single user mode file comparisons
To: William Allen Simpson <wsimpson@greendragon.com>
From: Greywolf <greywolf@starwolf.com>
List: current-users
Date: 06/09/2003 09:19:17
Thus spake William Allen Simpson ("WAS> ") sometime Today...
WAS> I've detailed the few commands that's I've ever needed in boot -s,
WAS> which is how *I* think of "single user mode". I've mostly wanted
WAS> "chown" (was /sbin, now /usr/sbin), "passwd" (/usr/bin), and "more"/"less"
WAS> (/usr/bin). I seem to remember using "cat" and "ed", too.
...ed and his cat live in the /bin, right? They do in our system...
WAS> However, doesn't the principle of least astonishment lead to keeping
WAS> things in /bin and /sbin in the same manner as other *nix variants?
The principle of least astonishment was destroyed years ago by those
other UNIX[*] variants, and I find the least surprise thus far under
*BSD, specifically NetBSD (which I think followed the path that 4.4
would have taken had it continued, but (here < that < there), I suppose).
A real OS doesn't need /usr at a single-user prompt (though, yes, it is
NICE to have handy on occasion).
--*greywolf;
--
[*] To /dev/null with the TM/Copyright. Come get me, you miscreant excuse
of a standards organisation.