| |||||||||||||
Good ideas, but too far from the mainstreamGood ideas, but too far from the mainstreamPosted Jan 10, 2008 23:09 UTC (Thu) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501)In reply to: Good ideas, but too far from the mainstream by epa Parent article: GoboLinux
Now please explain to me what is the advantage of such splitting of the name-space of executables. Tab-completion does make things manageable. If that idea were so useful, it would have been implemented in some other distributions, wouldn't it?
(Log in to post comments)
Good ideas, but too far from the mainstream Posted Jan 13, 2008 1:16 UTC (Sun) by liljencrantz (subscriber, #28458) [Link] My old university had something a bit like this. It allowed them to have truly massive amounts of software installed, and dozens of versions of some packages. Each user could then freely pick and choose which versions of which packages (or modules, as they called them) to use, or they could simply use the latest recommended version. It was extremly useful in an environemnt with tens of thousands of users running software on something like half a dozen different hardware platforms and half a dozen different operating systems. I don't really know how useful this would be on a simple desktop system.
Good ideas, but too far from the mainstream Posted Jan 13, 2008 18:36 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] I wrote a system at an old workplace which worked something like this. At login it traversed a dependency tree, built a pair of directories full of symlinks to binaries and shared libraries under /tmp, and pointed PATH and LD_LIBRARY_PATH through it. (It used shell traps to remove the directories, although if I'd had root privs I would probably have used PAM instead.) (You could ask for specific binaries or all binaries from specific packages, but almost nobody but me ever did that. Most people just turned everything off and on when necessary, *sigh*)
|
|||||||||||||