From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@9fans.net Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 15:25:03 +0100 From: gdiaz@9grid.es Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] Do we have a catalog of 9P servers? Topicbox-Message-UUID: 40e19070-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 Hola, Hiding the details of the underlying resources is one of the functions/features of the OS, isn't it? slds. gabi -- eris.discordia@gmail.com wrote: > >> you of course know that the big difference in unix and other >> systems of the day was that files did not have type. this allowed >> a tools-based approach which was popular for many years. > >Not that type of "types." I gave an example (which Charles Forsyth found to >be a bad one) to set the types of "types" apart. I mean "types" as in named >pipes ("special" files) versus regular files. In my experience which is >limited to "modern" UNIX clones, i.e. Linux and *BSD, you can distinguish >between a number of file "types" and decide what to do accordingly. You can >tell a directory, from a (character or block) device, from a link, from a >regular file. These same "types" could, and have been, be used to represent >some details of the underlying resource. > >--On Wednesday, November 12, 2008 6:11 PM -0500 erik quanstrom > wrote: > >>> Why shouldn't there be file "types" to >>> help better represent the details of an underlying resource? >> >> you of course know that the big difference in unix and other >> systems of the day was that files did not have type. this allowed >> a tools-based approach which was popular for many years. >> >> - erik > > > > > >