Unless you mean stuff like configuration? I think user configuration would still reside somewhere under the user's home dir
Unless you mean stuff like configuration? I think user configuration would still reside somewhere under the user's home dir
2. /sbin, as distinct from /bin, is for system management programs (not normally used by ordinary users) needed before /usr is mounted.
3. /usr/bin is for distribution-managed normal user programs.
4. There is a /usr/sbin with the same relationship to /usr/bin as /sbin has to /bin.
5. /usr/local/bin is for normal user programs not managed by the distribution package manager, e.g. locally compiled packages. You should not install them into /usr/bin because future distribution upgrades may modify or delete them without warning.
6. /usr/local/sbin, as you can probably guess at this point, is to /usr/local/bin as /usr/sbin to /usr/bin.
One downside to Program Files type structure is that there's probably going to be some duplicate libraries lying around. However, as someone who's battled version skews due to clashing maintainer mindsets: that's been a much bigger pain in my ass than a few wasted kbs!
source: http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-December/074...
An interesting idea, but I have to figure the majority of Unix sites kept /usr on the local machine like always.
BSDs still make the distinction but Linux moved on a while ago.
https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseFor...
I can’t find an exact date but here’s a stack overflow discussion about the topic from 2016: https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/266517/why-is-bin-a...
similarly /lib and /lib64 are pointers to /usr/lib
It might be interesting in a vm to remove those symlinks and see what breaks. Presumably a lot.