From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 21:19:35 +0000 From: Eris Discordia To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Message-ID: <473357B91DA2FB749BBEB805@[192.168.1.2]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Subject: Re: [9fans] Do we have a catalog of 9P servers? Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3fdc030e-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > 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 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. >