Soapbox Stand: Why U Move My /usr/bin?
Unix this, Unix that, you are destroying Linux… Some of these you might have heard recently with another Linux distro changing how the Linux filesystem is accessed (another prominent figure being Fedora). Or a small part of it. As of June 2013, the team at Arch Linux merged /sbin and /usr/sbin in to /usr/bin. Why why why you many be asking youself? Well let’s look at it closely:
There is no need for so many bin and lib directories, honestly. While I am not a kernel dev and will not pretend to be one, anyone can realize that when you check your $PATH environment variable, there really is quite a lot of areas that binaries and libraries can hide in, when we really only need 2. Arch has done this to keep things simple, which is a primary philosophy of their system. It makes no sense to have four different directories for binaries and two for libraries, rather than one directory for each, /usr/bin for binaries and /usr/lib for libraries.
The fear mongering around this is quite silly, as /usr/sbin and the like will be symlinked to the new standard anyway regardless. For a user, you should hardly notice the difference. Those more technical, will see the symlinks and adjust their own methods accordingly. The question for many is whether or not this is a great idea (like I said it has been done before).
What are your thoughts? While I think it is a good move for Arch, not everyone feels this way obviously. Time will only tell if moves like this and systemd pan out long term. And, in all actuality, this involves a far bit of relevance to systemd anyway. While I will never truly understand the need for so many /usr directory trees, Arch’s approach is one that I find quite “workable.” Thoughts?
Arch update guide for this subject