On 03/04/2011 09:56 AM, Kagamin wrote:
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.
What do you expect? *nixWorld is HackLand, in all senses of 'hack' ;-)
Denis
--
_________________
vita es estrany
spir.wikidot.com
