The real difference is when you try to work out whether your binaries are (supposed to be) in /bin, /usr/local/bin, /sbin, etc, whether settings for a specific application and/or daemon are in $config or $.cfg or $.conf or $.cf or $d_config or .ssh and .bshrc in your personal directory, and where your web server and mail logs are.
Because they might be in /var/log - or equally they might not.
Unix was "designed" by hyperactive comedy racoons with ADHD. There's no reason - beyond lack of attention span and professionalism - why basic features and expectations couldn't have been standardised. But the Unix way is to get something sort of working without paying much attention to what other people are doing, lose interest in it, and move on.
Or to hammer away at something for decades adding more and more obscure edge case config options in a text file, all of which need to be set carefully because otherwise the application fails - probably silently, maybe leaving a log message somewhere completely unexpected - and most of which are irrelevant to 90% of users who just want Something That Works.
It's not a cosmetic difference. Unix has a single-rooted filesystem. VMS did not (like DOS). That doesn't invalidate your complaints about file naming and location, but it isn't a cosmetic difference.
Well for starters, those are different folders because they mean different things.
If you’re ever trying to figure out where a binary is located, `which` and `whereis` will do that for you. Also programs will list in their `man` page where config files can be set etc, and sometimes they allow multiple options.
But yes, your inability to search anything up or to understand the basics of Unix constitute a complete design failure.
> Unix was "designed" by hyperactive comedy racoons with ADHD.
I have met the authors of lots of significant parts of unix and I have found them - universally - to be smart, competent and introspective.
I also found it interesting that most (85%) of top athletes were introverts.
Now to compare VMS with unix, you'll find there are some things that are better because capitalism works. Someone was in charge of VMS development, and people were paid to solve specific problems for the operating system or customers. But some things are worse because people were in charge of making trade-offs for current customers vs future direction.
On the other hand, unix also has some points in its favor. A lot of things have appeared that would not survive in a commercial business. Ideas seem to live or die depending on their merits more than by fiat.
The thing is - when people want "something that works" it usually involves tradeoffs that people don't want. You can run an older version of centos/rhel and you will find more 'it just works' at the expense of (relatively) older software. (or you can go look at the source and fix it yourself)
The real difference is when you try to work out whether your binaries are (supposed to be) in /bin, /usr/local/bin, /sbin, etc, whether settings for a specific application and/or daemon are in $config or $.cfg or $.conf or $.cf or $d_config or .ssh and .bshrc in your personal directory, and where your web server and mail logs are.
Because they might be in /var/log - or equally they might not.
Unix was "designed" by hyperactive comedy racoons with ADHD. There's no reason - beyond lack of attention span and professionalism - why basic features and expectations couldn't have been standardised. But the Unix way is to get something sort of working without paying much attention to what other people are doing, lose interest in it, and move on.
Or to hammer away at something for decades adding more and more obscure edge case config options in a text file, all of which need to be set carefully because otherwise the application fails - probably silently, maybe leaving a log message somewhere completely unexpected - and most of which are irrelevant to 90% of users who just want Something That Works.