To me all of this is a mess that make administering a system more complex. Personally, I use ArchLinux, and everything I have to do to update everything on my

To me all of this is a mess that make administering a system more complex. Personally, I use ArchLinux, and everything I have to do to update everything on my system is launch `pacman -Syu`. I can install extra software from the AUR, but this is managed by the same package manager in the end and thus installed in /usr/bin. For work I use mainly Debian based systems, that is Debian or Ubuntu, similar thing happens in these systems, you update everything with `apt upgrade` and don't worry about the rest. I'm also of the philosophy that is always better to update to the latest version available, that is I don't fear upgrading my system (rather on critical systems I install OS such as Debian stable or Ubuntu LTS that only provide bugfix and not new features). While it's true that with the FreeBSD approach you can update one software and not update the core of the operating system, why would you want to do so? Updates usually fix security problems, you typically want all the software updated to the latest version, unless we talk about some specific edge cases. To me it seems the distinction that Linux once had about /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin and /usr/sbin: in modern distributions (such as ArchLinux, Fedora/Red Hat, etc) everything is a symlink to /usr/bin because this distinction doesn't make a lot of sense anymore. Only a few distro such as Debian keep this distinction as far as I know (only for legacy purposes probably).