Norbert Nemec wrote: > Question is, whether read-only is the only thing we want to go for. It would
For some stuff I'm pretty sure it is. For all the stuff I had pictured in my head it is. On the other hand, a transparant-redundancy (to coin a term, which probably isn't a good one :)) filesystem would certainly have its uses. > be absolutly neat, if we had a way to layer filesystems in a absolutely > transparent way, so one could do things like have a read-only system as base > (maybe NFS-shared by several computers?) and a read-write system on top that > takes any changes you make and perhaps copies of frequently used files for > better performance. > > Imagine a pre-installed system distributed on DVD (several GB in size) that > you can use just as any normal system, since it writes only the changes on a > fairly small partition (or even a ramdisk) > > It might even serve for test-installing some program: Just layer the > complete file-system with a empty read-write system, do the installation, > test it and cleanly dump all the changes afterwards with no risk. > > I have no idea whether that justifies the trouble, but at least it sounds > hurdish, doesn't it? -- Rhamphoryncus [EMAIL PROTECTED] "I'd like to live in a world were I could consider the death of 50 schoolchildren in an crash signifigant."
