that's a particularly bad example to pick. those shouldn't exist at all.
I don't see why (of course I am rather short-sighted). I guess they exist
because at some point in UNIX history devices existed that could be
usefully characterized as either block or character devices or meaningfully
distinct applications existed for named pipes of either type. But it's very
probable anyway that you know better than I do. The bad example, however,
doesn't invalidate the question. Why shouldn't there be file "types" to
help better represent the details of an underlying resource?
--On Wednesday, November 12, 2008 2:02 PM +0000 Charles Forsyth
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why isn't there provision for file "types" at least
(mknod types b and c come to mind)?
that's a particularly bad example to pick. those shouldn't exist at all.
