Comment by M95D

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.