Am 04.03.2011 09:56, schrieb Kagamin: > Jonathan M Davis Wrote: > >> On Friday 04 March 2011 00:08:25 Kagamin wrote: >>> JérÎme 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.
On *nix: Yes. Scripts have to be flagged executable. (Of course you can start a non-executable script with e.g. bash foo.sh)
