Jonathan M Davis Wrote: > On Friday 04 March 2011 00:08:25 Kagamin wrote: > > Jérôme M. Berger Wrote: > > > >> ?????? > > > >> It ALWAYS makes a difference. For example, only .exe and .com files > > > >> are executable. > > > >> On unix, the filename is just a name. Nothing more. By contrast, the > > > >> Windows extension actually matters. They're completely different. > > > > > > > > What do you mean? You can run .js and .vbs files as well. > > > > > > No you cannot. What happens is that you *open* them with the > > > > > > default application, which just happens to be an interpreter whose > > > default action is to run the script. > > > > I think, the same happens on unix. Is the script to be flagged executable > > to be run, just like any other runnable file? > > The only way _anything_ is executable in *nix is if its executable flag is > set. > Extensions mean _nothing_ as far as executability goes.
As you can see, there's an ambiguity here: script is not executed directly in the same sense as machine code, so it may be not called an execution and not require executable flag to be interpreted. Actual application beign executed is interpreter. So the question is whether a script have to be flagged executable in order to run interpreter on it.
