Comment by mjg59
4 days ago
/ has to be writeable (or have separate writeable mounts under it), /usr doesn't. The reasons for unifying under /usr are clearly documented and make sense and it's incredibly tedious seeing people complain about it without putting any effort into understanding it.
Documented where?
https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseFor..., for example
OK, there are 4 reasons listed there:
> Improved compatibility [...] That means scripts/programs written for other Unixes or other Linuxes and ported to your distribution will no longer need fixing for the file system paths of the binaries called, which is otherwise a major source of frustration. [..]
Scripts authors should use the binary name without a path and let the user's $PATH choose which binary to use and from where.
This union denies me the choice of using the statically linked busybox in /bin as a fallback if the "full" binaries in /usr are corrupted or segfaults after some library update.
> Improved compatibility with other Unixes (in particular Solaris) in appearance [...]
I don't care about appearances and I care even less about what Solaris looks like.
Did they take a survey of what Linux users care about, or just imposed their view on all of us because they simply know better? Or were paid to "know better" - I never exclude corruption.
> Improved compatibility with GNU build systems. The biggest part of Linux software is built with GNU autoconf/automake (i.e. GNU autotools), which are unaware of the Linux-specific /usr split.
Yeah, right. Please explain to me how GNU, the userspace of 99% of all Linux distributions isn't aware of Linux-specific /usr split.
And how is this any different from #1 ?
> Improved compatibility with current upstream development
AKA devs decided and users' opinion is irrelevant. This explains why GNU isn't aware of Linux /usr split - they simply don't want to be aware.