> There's a /bin and a /usr/bin because, historically, /bin is on your > partition/slice/volume containing / and /usr/bin is on your > parition/slice/volume containing /usr. /bin conatins statically-linked > file (files which _contain_ the libs the need to run, rather than > "pointing" to the libs). at least that's the theory. it's a very nice _theory_. :) AFAIK, RedSmack dynamically links the stuff in /bin and /sbin. dunno about other distros. it's kind of irksome when a luser is told (by a so-called tech-support guy) to 'move libc.so.6 to libc.so, so that our binary-only application (<cough>informix<cough>) doesn't barf on the lack of that filename'. given a statically-linked shell, the user could have been walked through 'linux init=/bin/sh' to rename the file back; but no such luck. :( (and in case you're wondering; no, ash.static was not installed and the user didn't have rescue media that would handle their drive controller). OpenBSD statically links those files, tho. (not that I've tested this; I could be wrong). > And the whole concept of /usr/local is appaling :) It was historically > called /opt (optional stuff). /usr/local serves its purpose at times, tho. the BSDs use it for non-blessed software; and I think it's useful for non-packaged software. in case anyone's curious; I once heard a brief history of /usr. /usr was originally where the _user_ home directories were. then NFS came along and since home directories were shared among many machines; it made sense to put shared utilities where the shared space was; and /usr/bin, /usr/lib, and /usr/sbin were born. then admins started putting source code under that tree as well; and /usr/src was born. code that was gotten off the Internet (such as it was), or traded by other means, and put in /usr/src, didn't seem appropriate for the 'blessed' environments of /bin and /sbin; or even /usr/sbin and /usr/bin; so /usr/local (as in 'local to this installation') was created. eventually people said 'Hey, this is crowded here in /usr! let's just start from scratch with /home, and put people's home dirs there!' there's probably some inaccuracies in there. those who've been at this longer than I have, will probably be quick to correct me. :) /opt is vile and unnecessary and nothing should use it; unless the admin really *wants* to do it that way for some reason. if one has a small / partition, and doesn't create a mountpoint or symlink for /opt; programs that install in /opt will fill up the free space, and cause the admin headaches. Carl Soderstrom -- Network Engineer Real-Time Enterprises (952) 943-8700