/usr/local/bin vs /usr/local/sbin

[Kurt Granroth]

Jay wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, Eric "Shubes" wrote:
>> What's the 's' supposed to stand for? System (as in OS)?
>> Where should application scripts go by convention? Somewhere
>> referenced by $PATH I'm imagining. /usr/local/bin?
> 
> Um, good guesses on the 'security' and 'system' fronts, but
> traditionally (think old UNIX conventions here), the 's' in sbin stands
> for 'static'. It is intended as the place for static-compiled binaries
> (as opposed to dynamic-compiled binaries). Static binaries would also be
> best for functions like booting and system recovery, since during those
> tasks libraries and linkers may not be available/functioning.

Traditionally, yes, but that has to be an outdated convention by now.  A
quick look at the binaries in /sbin on a typical Linux system shows that
very very few are static anymore.

I tend to think off it like so:

/sbin -> Utilities dealing with low level systems like file systems,
networks, modules, etc.  All typically run only for root.

/usr/sbin -> System daemons like cupsd, mysqld, imapd, smbd, and so and
so forth.  Also contains other root-only utilities that aren't as low level.