Miklos Szeredi wrote: > (Please don't post separately to different recipients, that makes > replying quite awkward. Always reply to all, it's the Right Thing) > > > I disagree with this, I think there are plenty of situations where I > > may want to have several different namespaces for several different > > sessions. Once you unlock namespace manipulation for users, all sorts > > of new models of how to interact with the system fall out of that > > capability. > > I agree fully with you. > > What I was getting at, is why people want to use private namespaces in > a way that contradits the "privateness" of the namespace: i.e. share > it between sessions etc. Global namespace makes sense in that case.
The problem with global namespace is they're seen by everyone. There's an administrative need for things which are not visible by other users, but still shared between sessions. Al Viro is right to point out that environment variables are not shared. But he forgets that _files_ are shared. Privately mounted filesystems for the purpose of defining a "namespace session" - well, the question is whether they should behave more like files or more like environment variables. -- Jamie - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
