> i'm now not sure if i like the "setuname" vs. the "sysctl for each
   > emulation" ideas.  perhaps both can be used ....
   
   You almost need a per-binary wrapper to deal with the problem you're
   describing.   Needless to say, "yuck."


well, yeah.  (that is, i would if i was trying to run these applications
under emulation, which may happen in the future, but isn't planned :-).


we could make it a kernel option, too!  (mmm, dodging bricks...)