I'm not the one suggesting a new-fangled scheme for the filesystem hierarchy. I think whoever is suggesting something hugely disruptive would need to be the ones to defend it. I'm saying, "Hey, we got this thing that's worked for a few decades. Changing it is fine, if there's a real problem with it, and solving it can't be done without disruption."

The person I responded to said the current Linux pattern of "/bin", and "/usr/bin", and "/usr/local/bin", etc. is inefficient (whatever that means). I said I disagreed (as much as one can without really understanding what is efficient about the new scheme or inefficient about the old) and pointed to a change that Fedora has made in recent years that simplifies it somewhat and recognizes that systems have changed (and the way we boot them has changed).

I'm not saying it is more efficient, I'm saying it's not less efficient (again, whatever that means in this context, you'd have to ask the person above me that I was responding to). But, I do find "one application per directory" very messy. My package manager knows where everything is so I don't have to.

This may not be awful. I'm not saying it is bad. I'm saying, "if we're going to change everything about the way we install, manage, update, and use software on Linux", there'd better be a damned good reason for it. It must be a clear improvement. This does not strike me as a clear improvement. It's clever for the sake of clever, without any significant value.

So, tell me why I'd want this. (And, "it's like macOS" sure as heck aint sellin' it.)