Re:Man who thought opening a TXT file is fine thought wrong
by soulofmischief on Saturday April 03, 2021 @12:24PM
(#26682279)
Except permissions aren't granular enough / are too confusing, it's a giant footgun with the current Linux architecture, which doesn't have all the nice things Plan9 does
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Man who thought opening a TXT file is fine thought wrong
by rijoja on Wednesday April 07, 2021 @01:39PM
(#26728148)
I didn't say that the everything is a file philosophy is necessarily correct and well implemented on Linux. Merely that if you where to continue along this direction it would seem like a logical next step. I don't think I would use this for anything but for shell scripts at best. However especially if you are a plan 9 fanatic then it would seem like quite a good idea which is what the original question was.
Re:Man who thought opening a TXT file is fine thought wrong
by bawolff on Saturday April 03, 2021 @05:06PM
(#26684736)
I mean, unless you're host is extremely locked down you'll probably also have telnet,netcat, etc installed, so no great difference.
Re:Man who thought opening a TXT file is fine thought wrong
by nolok on Saturday April 03, 2021 @05:46PM
(#26685023)
I'm no specialist but I'm inclined to disagree, for me it's the difference between the ability to run an arbitrary binary and the ability to read/write an arbitrary filepath
Re:Man who thought opening a TXT file is fine thought wrong
by capitainenemo on Monday April 05, 2021 @07:53AM
(#26697842)
They are imaginary paths in the bash executable.
They aren't usable outside it. Thus the netcat analogy.
Re:Man who thought opening a TXT file is fine thought wrong
by LinuxBender on Monday April 05, 2021 @10:09AM
(#26699150)
Anything you can do in telnet or netcat can also be done in python, perl, ruby. One of those is likely installed, most probably python.