Hola,
Hiding the details of the underlying resources is one of the functions/features
of the OS, isn't it?
slds.
gabi
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> you of course know that the big difference in unix and other
>> systems of the day was that files did not have type. this allowed
>> a tools-based approach which was popular for many years.
>
>Not that type of "types." I gave an example (which Charles Forsyth found to
>be a bad one) to set the types of "types" apart. I mean "types" as in named
>pipes ("special" files) versus regular files. In my experience which is
>limited to "modern" UNIX clones, i.e. Linux and *BSD, you can distinguish
>between a number of file "types" and decide what to do accordingly. You can
>tell a directory, from a (character or block) device, from a link, from a
>regular file. These same "types" could, and have been, be used to represent
>some details of the underlying resource.
>
>--On Wednesday, November 12, 2008 6:11 PM -0500 erik quanstrom
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> Why shouldn't there be file "types" to
>>> help better represent the details of an underlying resource?
>>
>> you of course know that the big difference in unix and other
>> systems of the day was that files did not have type. this allowed
>> a tools-based approach which was popular for many years.
>>
>> - erik
>
>
>
>
>
>
