[Solved] why are links to busybox applets scattered across four directories?

[GNUser]

I noticed that links to BB applets are scattered across /usr/bin, /usr/sbin, /bin, and /sbin. Given TCL's anti-scatter philosophy, I was a bit surprised by this. I was expecting one directory or two at the most (e.g., links for busybox applets in /bin, links for busybox.suid applets in /sbin).

The question is motivated by curiosity, not criticism. I'm sure there is a practical or historical reason for this, which would be interesting to know.

[Rich]

Hi GNUser
Just a guess, but maybe some programs had  /usr/bin  and  /usr/sbin  hard coded into them.

[andyj]

Traditionally, /usr is a separate file system from /, so the programs in /bin and /sbin would be available even if no other disks were mounted. Putting everything from /usr/bin and /usr/sbin into /bin and /sbin would fill up the boot disk. This isn't really an issue anymore, but us old timers know it used to be.

[GNUser]

Thank you, andyj. Very interesting. I suspected it was a historical reason. Relative newcomers to *nix such as myself (I've been a happy GNU/Linux user since 2012) have a hard time imagining such scenarios

Thread can be marked as Solved.

P.S. Would it add value to TCL to reduce the number of directories for binaries in base system? I realize the cost would be real (work to change it, possible side effects, loss of a historical feature) for only an aesthetic gain (decreased complexity of filesystem hierarchy).

[xor]

(as usual I write with google translate

from different geographies, different countries,
and as people speaking different languages,
Even if we overlooked even the issues that each other opened
as if there is a common collective consciousness

Regarding the subject, please review the other topic I have opened.

? the hardcore of utopic minimalism ? how should a really minimalist linux be !?
http://forum.tinycorelinux.net/index.php?topic=24514.msg155482#msg155482

I will add a more technical criticism thesis report to the forum soon

[curaga]

Historically the binaries have always been there, so many scripts have hardcoded paths. This means any unification would still need symlinks for those dirs, kinda defeating the purpose.

[GNUser]

Unification with symlinks would be ugly, worse than current situation in a way. Oh, well. Thanks, guys!

[xor]

I have a solution suggestion,
but I guess nobody takes me seriously!

Unification with symlinks would be ugly, worse than current situation in a way. Oh, well. Thanks, guys!