I wish most *Unixes would go the Gobo Linux route with a Program, Users, System, Data, Mount file hierarchy that is just symlinks under the hood to the old hierarchy
Why rename? How does that benefit us? The only real difference gobo offers is separating program and system files, but I'm not even sure what the difference is there.
In the the gobo documentation^1 section called "But what about Unix compatibility?"
> The GoboLinux system layout seems to be a major departure from the Unix tradition. Does this mean all programs need to adjusted so that they work with the new layout? Fortunately, the answer is no. Through a mapping of traditional paths into their GoboLinux counterparts, we transparently retain compatibility with the Unix legacy.
~] ls -l /dev/null | cut -b 45-
/dev/null
~] ls -l /bin/sh | cut -b 45-
sh -> /Programs/Bash/4.4/bin/bash
> There is no rocket science to this: /bin is a link to /System/Index/bin. And as a matter of fact, so is /usr/bin. And /usr/sbin... all "binaries" directories map to the same place. Amusingly, this makes us even more compatible than some more standard-looking distributions. In GoboLinux, all standard paths work for all files, while other distros may struggle with incompatibilites such as scripts breaking when they refer to /usr/bin/foo when the file is actually in /usr/local/bin/foo.
> You may have noticed that the Unix paths did not show up in the system root listing in the very first example. They are actually there, but they are concealed from view using the GoboHide kernel extension. This is for aesthetic purposes only and purely optional, though: GoboLinux does not require modifications in the kernel or any other system components. But our users seem to like it a lot. :-)
So it doesn't break the world. The faq^2 also indicates this wasn't a change to make Linux more newbie friendly, but in my own words I think it does.
