I see this opinion a lot, but what tangible benefits does that result in?
I see this opinion a lot, but what tangible benefits does that result in?
For me, this is a nice benefit because I can know that anything installed into /usr/local can be removed and won't break the basic system's functionality. This organizational structure I think is also just very sensible imo.
Note: I'm mostly a Linux user but I play around with FreeBSD a lot. I wish that by default my Arch machine organized things similarly, but ultimately it's minor enough for me that I haven't switched
I don't really see how it is relevant. First I don't see why would anyone want to randomly remove things. On my linux system everything that I compile or install by myself goes to /usr/local. Everything managed by packages goes to /usr, any thing that comes from a precompiled tarball is better installed in /opt. How is that different?
What I liked about freebsd when I was using it was the handbook that was fairly complete.
A simple example is if you run 'which vim'. If you have installed vim through pkg on FreeBSD it will show up in /usr/local/bin/vim. Whereas if you run 'which vim' on Ubuntu, it will show up in /usr/bin/vim -- but on Ubuntu Desktop (when I last used it) vim is preinstalled. You can't just look at the /usr directory on a Linux machine in most cases and know what was installed when you installed the machine.
I mean, try debloating an Ubuntu Desktop machine that's been used for a while and tell me if by looking at the /usr directory what was included in the install vs what you installed post-install.
A simple example is if you run 'which vim'. If you have installed vim through pkg on FreeBSD it will show up in /usr/local/bin/vim. Whereas if you run 'which vim' on Ubuntu, it will show up in /usr/bin/vim -- but on Ubuntu Desktop (when I last used it) vim is preinstalled. You can't just look at the /usr directory on a Linux machine in most cases and know what was installed when you installed the machine.