On Thu Feb 2 18:32:34 CST 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > (f)open() ... read/write .. (f)close() on a name, then you > either dick with the name, or dick with the open FD, or invoke the gods. > > sockets() in some ways was about deliberately breaking the model to > make things like ioctl() more plausibly tenable. Who really cares if > you have to setsockopt() once you bought into having to do the whole > socket() thing in the first place? > > -G
the argument that keeps coming up seems to be "you can write to a socket, so how bad can it be". the corollary seems to be "you can pass the fd around". i believe the corollary is false. how would you tell your favorite editor to open a file on the other end of a socket? it is a major problem that the network (with a socket interface) is outside the namespace. it results in stuff like /dev/tcp in bash/gawk. furthermore, it's not true that you can "just write" to a socket. for instance, udp sockets cannot be written to. - erik
