The Idea of /usr/sbin Has Failed in Practice
Posted4 months agoActive4 months ago
utcc.utoronto.caTechstory
calmmixed
Debate
60/100
UnixFilesystem HierarchySystem Administration
Key topics
Unix
Filesystem Hierarchy
System Administration
The article argues that the historical separation of system binaries into /usr/sbin has become unnecessary and confusing, sparking a discussion about the original purpose and current relevance of this directory.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Light discussionFirst comment
10m
Peak period
3
2-3h
Avg / period
1.5
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Sep 15, 2025 at 5:28 PM EDT
4 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Sep 15, 2025 at 5:38 PM EDT
10m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
3 comments in 2-3h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Sep 16, 2025 at 1:59 AM EDT
4 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45255148Type: storyLast synced: 11/17/2025, 2:06:15 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
In that world view, the death knell was sounded in the 1980s.
Now, it has become routine to include /sbin and /usr/sbin in the PATH, and so we find ourselves having to su(do) thing, because we forget that it may look "runnable" and be found, but demands privilege to execute.
In days of yore when I started my journey, we didn't give ordinary logins these elements in PATH, and we believed in our UID/GID protection rings as well because sudo didn't exist. To be admitted to knowing the root password demanded you do the stonecutters walk of shame with the rock round your neck into the operations room at the end by the Dec-10. You also got the key to the cupboard where all the serial lines terminated, and access to a kettle and tin of bad instant coffee.
I don't want to attribute this change to malice because it is a rather arcane detail, but let's just say that I don't approve of IBM's recent activities related to Linux and FOSS.
No, it’s for system binaries or superuser binaries (depending on which you prefer, I’ve heard people say it both ways). I’m see people say it’s because they are statically linked but the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard says it’s “system” [0].
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_Hierarchy_Standar...