5 ms·
For anyone wondering, it is enabled by default on Ubuntu too. I wonder what made someone think that this was a good idea?
by amenod 6y ago
For anyone wondering, it is enabled by default on Ubuntu too. I wonder what made someone think that this was a good idea?
- rijoja 6y agoIf you follow the everything is a file philosophy it seems quite natural does it not?
- soulofmischief 6y agoExcept 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
- bawolff 6y agoI mean, unless you're host is extremely locked down you'll probably also have telnet,netcat, etc installed, so no great difference.
- nolok 6y agoI'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
- capitainenemo 6y agoThey are imaginary paths in the bash executable. They aren't usable outside it. Thus the netcat analogy.
- LinuxBender 6y agoAnything you can do in telnet or netcat can also be done in python, perl, ruby. One of those is likely installed, most probably python.
- rijoja 6y agoAnd if you think about if all applications where using files for communication blocking one program from the internet would be as simple as a chmod.
- rijoja 6y agoI 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.