Hmm... I had thought of parallel installs, but A/B testing in order to maximize ad revenue is a brilliant application.
I have also been thinking about the potential for seamless instillation and startup of applications - updates to app can be installed in the background to a bound /tmp directory, with that directories' location journaled; meanwhile, the application continues running for the user. The updated application then begins in the background - using the /tmp directory - and loads everything the user is currently doing in the old. Then, it prompts the user to 'restart' the application, during which it plays an ad for the amount of time a user would usually expect a restart to take - with the benefit of being able to use CPU-intensive eye-tracking software to watch the user's interest in ads. The amount of time could also be A/B tested per application. At some point when the user is not using the application, the journaled /tmp location can be copied over to the correct install path. I'm not quite sure how to inconvenience the user further than they normally are with this method, however... Thanks for all the insightful advice! Marshall On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 3:55 PM Marshall Conover <marzhal...@gmail.com> wrote: > khm - Unfortunately, that would conflict with the browsing model I want to > propose once I've proven my worth - in which the user emails a daemon with > the site they want, which the daemon then wgets, forwards to them, and > opens up emacs. > > Thanks! > > Marshall > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 10:58 AM Marshall Conover <marzhal...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi All! >> >> I've been exploring the Fuchsia operating system, and while they have >> per-process namespaces, they don't have a utility like plan 9's bind, nor a >> method of supporting it by default in their system libraries. I've made >> some progress on adding it (https://imgur.com/HELWbrQ), but enthusiasm >> for the concept seems lukewarm, and I'm coming to the point where I feel >> I'm going to need to make a strong argument for why it should be a feature >> of their per-process namespace filesystem. As someone who's neither on >> their team nor an employee of google, I feel that I'm going to need to make >> a damn good argument - and I'd very much like to, as it really, *really* is >> something I'd like to have easily within reach in a modern OS, and it seems >> like such a low-hanging fruit of a feature. >> >> I have two scenarios currently I feel make a strong argument for the >> inclusion of bind: one is running tests on an install of a product while >> still being able to do development on it, by using a bind to redirect the >> development dll to the install's dll in the process I'm developing in; and >> the other an example of when a bind would just be convenient, such as a >> certain process needing python2 instead of python3 on a system which >> defaults to python 3, and have scripts that reference #/bin/python. >> >> So, I'd like to hear the community's thoughts on other uses of bind. I >> think they'd be useful both for making my case for bind, and in thinking >> about my continuing implementation of the command. I also want to implement >> union mounting in the future (which I can get very-close-to-being-free with >> my changes for umount), but right now bind is my focus. >> >> Thanks for your time. >> >> Marshall >> >
