3 ms·

why should I care if its in /usr/local or /opt I thought that those are the standard place to put third party unix software?

• jlg23 4y ago
  From the article: > Since it was installed in your home directory - no need to change any permissions. No sudo required. Although I'd argue sudo vs no-sudo-but-in-your-home-directory is the same difference. Local exploits are trivial to find, plentiful and still not even necessary: 99% of the time some sloppy local configuration can be exploited to gain root access. I've switched to "let's try a few minutes on our own before asking the admin" a long time ago - and haven't required an admin's help ever since..
• clhodapp 4y ago
  /usr/local is supposed to be kind of a "standard Unix tree" (with like bin & share directories and the like) that contains software manually installed by the system administrator, for the use of all users, possibly from multiple sources / by multiple techniques. If one source of software or user takes over the whole thing, they are muscling out all the other valid use cases for that tree. /opt is supposed to be a place where programs that don't want to co-operate are granted ownership of one directory to install stuff in, which they can organize as they wish. It's often used as a way to install badly-packaged proprietary software or to give "foreign" package managers a place to put their packages. Brew wanting to take over /usr/local is kind of like a package manager wanting to take over the whole /opt. It's overstepping its bounds.