From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <18cf509dd60d3bf587780a5076946111@quanstro.net>
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:50:52 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
In-Reply-To: <3aaafc130907131641x23280307p7c5a478d9ae93a4@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] v9fs question
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 1e0ceac6-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> It would be nice to fix up mounts so that you didn't need to be root
> and all that crap, and then make it the default, but I doubt Linus
> would let it fly. I get the feeling that private namespaces are viewed
> like chroots: a security feature no one but pros needs. Unfortunately
> not many linux devs seem to care about plan 9, and that has a negative
> impact on how much stuff can happen. Hopefully we'll gradually wear
> them down, or keep a minifork/patchset.

i think if the linux folks really appreciated what one
could do with namespaces, a number of the
container bolt-on things could be implemented in terms
of namespace.

(then again, i have a feeling the same could be said of
plan 9.)

it's quite interesting to see how taking the seemingly-
conservative approach at every turn can take you
much further from v7 than even pretty radical breaks
like plan 9.

- erik