Re: union mounts

On Fri, Nov 06, 1998 at 06:05:14PM -0800, David Jeske wrote:
> In my own UNIX installations, I've moved in completely the opposite
> directions, all packages are encapsulated in their own directories. On
> superior shells (like zsh) I just manually add entries into the path
> hash table. I don't have a /usr/local/bin.
>
> This allows me to have lots of versions of the same things installed,
> and allows me to be more aware of command line naming conflicts.

I forgot to mention the most significant thing about this whole
scheme. To create environments I no longer have to list paths to
packages, I just list the package identifier. Something like
"netscape-4.03". So the environments work anywhere regardless of app
installation location.

But this is getting off topic, check out this URL if you want to know more:

http://www.chat.net/~jeske/Projects/UnixTools/

Related to VSTa, the reason I like process local mounts is that it
provides the ability to 'redirect' or 'sandbox'. However, ports and
the namer or not remappable, so if applications depend on these
directly, they are not remappable.

In a sense, I feel more comfortable when accessing resources is 100%
VM-able because only then can you guarantee nobody relies on an
absolute resource.

-- 
David Jeske (N9LCA) + http://www.chat.net/~jeske/ + jeske_at_chat.net