Hello, On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 01:59:49AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 11:14:32AM +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > > > And it would be nice to be able to just use the same base Hurd for the > > main hurd and all subhurds - it needs a readonly mounted partition, so > > it might be possible to use the same partition for different subhurds > > and unionmount the specific files into it. > > This should be possible; but I don't think that subhurd is really the > right tool for this. None of the system-wide mechanisms would works in a > useful fashion this way. > > In fact pure subhurds are the most boring use of Hurd mechanisms IMHO -- > it's not much different than traditional container solutions like Linux > VServer or OpenVZ. Aside from debugging purposes, they are mostly > interesting as a demonstration of what is possible :-) > > It's much more interesting to have a partially customized environment > *without* booting a complete extra system instance; but rather accessing > the main system for most stuff. That's what I'm calling "light-weight > subhurd-like environments" -- but it's all very vague, as many of my > ideas :-(
Are you talking about reusing other base system services besides terminal and root store? > > We should be careful with talking about that, though: VCS filesystems > > have been ridiculed almost as efficiently as the Hurd :) > > Note that while true version controlling filesystems are rather > unpopular, snapshotting filesystems (ZFS, Btrfs) are quickly becoming > standard. > > The difference is that snapshotting is done explicitely at certain > points of time, rather than implicitely on certain events. Hm, are git commits really different from snapshots? Regards, scolobb
