From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 14:39:14 -0700 From: Roman Shaposhnick To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] Install from CD fails Message-ID: <20060418213914.GJ7076@submarine> References: <775b8d190604181055g7eb9e200ncbf546291a0e098e@mail.gmail.com> <3e1162e60604181222j5901d428udd71067d75336001@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3e1162e60604181222j5901d428udd71067d75336001@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3d70597e-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 12:22:30PM -0700, David Leimbach wrote: > On 4/18/06, Charles Forsyth wrote: > The interesting thing is that Plan 9's great namespace manipulation > functionality + the fact that each process can have a private > namespace means that Plan 9 probably has the best shot at dealing with > "DLL-hell", like when 10 programs need 10 different versions of the > same shared library to run respectively. A simple script wrapped > around the loading of a program can set up a namespace such that > ambiguities don't exist. And you would have to go through all of the aforementioned troubles to achieve exactly what ? What is it, that shared libraries are good at ? Thanks, Roman.