From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lucio De Re To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] Python filesystem Message-ID: <20011129125035.H317@cackle.proxima.alt.za> References: <20011128185430.958E519A33@mail.cse.psu.edu> <200111281909.fASJ9xT58241@devil.lucid> <20011129074900.F317@cackle.proxima.alt.za> <054201c1789f$5538bf00$b6f7c6d4@cybercable.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <054201c1789f$5538bf00$b6f7c6d4@cybercable.fr>; from Boyd Roberts on Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 07:30:25AM +0100 Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 12:50:35 +0200 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 2c8793f4-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 07:30:25AM +0100, Boyd Roberts wrote: > > > My thinking (just to show how muddled one can get) was to turn > > environments into shells, instead. Take CVS, for example: > > No, this is RAND [MH] mail hell. > I'd forgotten about MH. Yes, that's precisely the model, but with Plan 9's private namespaces instead of an arbitrary collection of badly named modules. MH struck me as clumsy more because of the selection of module functions and names than out of a failing in the concept. After all, it is the nature of Unix to have simple commands that can be strung together to produce complex results, where does MH's concept fail? As another example, was it C News or INN that had a shell environment that locked the news system while providing a more practical "path"? Those are half-baked ideas that might have a useful eventual resolution. Plan 9's user namespaces make that much more practical. ++L