@abathur yeah, basically. I was not being super technical, but that's what I meant, except the middle: It's just a file. It can be instructions or it can be the content itself.

@jk we should do GNP9: GNP9 is Not Plan 9, & it’s just a user-space running overlay with what the desktop cares about & then each program can request/inherit their own views

@jk the wild thing about this, too, is that some of the tools like docker and venv sort of break the "systems view" here because there could be stuff running using filesystems that you don't see from the "default" view :/ Hm. There probably is a way to see the cgroup fs mounted namespaces as a filetree in linux, at least, but I don't think it's in the sysadmin's "default view" so to speak. Your idea of different filesystem trees for different users/tasks is very plan9 and very UNIX, though, imho.

@jk Like imagine the simplicity, "build a tree of stuff and set your root there." You can do that without docker or venvs, really. And, shoot, you could probably build Python and everything in that "root." Don't even worry about venvs; use that local Python install in your root, etc etc

@jk Can confirm that these are just awful. They do not follow Unix conventions or philosophies. Better off with lxc or podman, but podman copies a lot of docker's ux for "drop-in" compatibility. A lot of projects don't need any kind of virt, lightweight or otherwise, and I'd much rather just build everything in tree and setup an environment to use it instead of using docker or even virtualenvs when I can avoid it. I'm surprised that I can't find more people complaining about the use of virtualenvs in Python and scripts. It causes a ton of problems.