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...
ggm•4mo ago
In that world view, the death knell was sounded in the 1980s.
wakawaka28•4mo ago
ggm•4mo ago
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.