I thought all the distros already did this with the /bin and /usr/bin merge; it's like that on at least Void and Arch Linux anyway.
The whole reinterpreting of "static bin" to "system bin" never made sense to me.
The whole reinterpreting of "static bin" to "system bin" never made sense to me.
> "The /bin vs /usr/bin split (and all the others) is an artifact of this, a 1970's implementation detail that got carried forward for decades by bureaucrats who never question _why_ they're doing things. It stopped making any sense before Linux was ever invented"
- http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-December/074...
imho we should go the entire way and move /home to /var/home, so anything other than /etc and /var can be read-only, I already place /var on a separate partition with /var/home on RHEL installs.
I'd love to have a way to have root really only be a read-only tmpfs that is only used for mount points (specifically /usr/, /var/ and /home/) and symlinks (for example /var/home/ to /home/ if no separate partition is wanted).
If you merge /bin and /usr/bin it becomes unclear which binaries you can rely on in an emergency. There's simply no easy way to tell at a glance.
Merging bin and sbin makes a little more sense to me. It avoids the very common scenarios where you type "sudo mount" or "sudo ip addr", something like that, and our shell just return "command not found", simply because it's not in the users $PATH. It's a minor convenience factor, but I can't see it making anything worse.