From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-Id: <31C84C15-2EE3-46CA-BE9F-48F20886ADF7@fastmail.fm> From: Ethan Grammatikidis To: ebo@sandien.com, Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 20:21:02 +0000 References: <20100325114948.GA7249@polynum.com> <20100325114948.GA7249@polynum.com> , Subject: Re: [9fans] Man pages for add-ons Topicbox-Message-UUID: f52983e8-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On 26 Mar 2010, at 05:02, EBo wrote: > I'm also talking about system wide apps on a > multiuser system. So, for example, your /$objtype/bin would look > something > like /sys_apps/$objtype/bin, and /sys_aps would contain all system > wide, > non-OS distributed, applications. This is just how I imagine /usr became the way it is in modern unix, and look how first /usr/local (or similar) and then /opt was added because it wasn't enough. We say we deal with it with namespaces, but the bindings on a freshly-installed Plan 9 box already make a much longer list than any $PATH I can imagine! I'm thinking over the idea that we're bumping up against the practical limits of hierarchal file systems as a means for organising stuff, but I've no idea what else might work. -- Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- Alan Perlis