Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #90165 > unrolled thread

/dev/tcp

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  /dev/tcp Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2026-08-19 21:20 +0000
    Re: /dev/tcp Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-19 23:53 +0100
    Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-19 23:42 +0000
      Re: /dev/tcp Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2026-08-20 00:59 +0000
        Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-20 03:59 +0000
          Re: /dev/tcp Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-20 10:10 +0100
          Re: /dev/tcp Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2026-08-20 18:15 +0000
            Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-20 23:30 +0000
              Re: /dev/tcp Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-21 01:18 +0100
              Re: /dev/tcp Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-08-21 09:52 +0200
                Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-21 08:12 +0000
                  Re: /dev/tcp Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-08-21 11:16 +0200
                    Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-21 22:57 +0000
                      Re: /dev/tcp Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-08-22 06:17 +0200
                Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-21 21:50 -0400
                Re: /dev/tcp Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> - 2026-08-24 17:42 +0300
                  Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-24 23:53 +0000
                  Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 02:27 -0400
              Re: /dev/tcp vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2026-08-23 00:56 +0000
                Re: /dev/tcp Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-23 04:01 +0000
                  Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-23 03:37 -0400
                    Re: /dev/tcp "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-23 13:50 +0200
                      Re: /dev/tcp vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2026-08-23 22:28 +0000
                        Re: /dev/tcp "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-24 09:35 +0200
                          Overwriting with random data (was: Re: /dev/tcp) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-24 11:10 +0100
                            Re: Overwriting with random data "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-24 20:34 +0200
                              Re: Overwriting with random data Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-24 20:57 +0100
                                Re: Overwriting with random data "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-24 22:26 +0200
                                  Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 02:39 -0400
                                    Re: Overwriting with random data Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 08:45 +0100
                                      Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 21:39 -0400
                                        Re: Overwriting with random data Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-26 18:08 +0000
                                    Re: Overwriting with random data "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-25 11:36 +0200
                                      Re: Overwriting with random data Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 15:19 +0100
                                        Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 03:33 -0400
                                          Re: Overwriting with random data The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 09:18 +0100
                                            Re: Overwriting with random data rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 17:34 +0000
                                    Re: Overwriting with random data The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:12 +0100
                                      Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 00:09 -0400
                                        Re: Overwriting with random data The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 08:52 +0100
                          Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 00:37 -0400
                      Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-24 00:31 -0400
                        Re: /dev/tcp "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-24 09:45 +0200
                    Re: /dev/tcp The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-23 12:52 +0100
                  Re: /dev/tcp The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-23 12:50 +0100
    Re: /dev/tcp Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-20 13:50 +0000
      Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-20 13:02 -0400
        Re: /dev/tcp Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-20 18:26 +0000
        Re: /dev/tcp The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-21 13:54 +0100
          Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-21 22:57 -0400
            Re: /dev/tcp "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-22 21:47 +0200
              The hammer is best (Was: /dev/tcp) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-08-22 23:50 +0000
                Re: The hammer is best (Was: /dev/tcp) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-23 04:28 -0400
                Re: The hammer is best Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-23 10:14 +0100
                  Re: The hammer is best "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-23 13:55 +0200
                    Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-23 13:16 +0100
                      Re: The hammer is best Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-08-23 21:20 +0200
                        Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-24 02:18 -0400
                        Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-24 11:26 +0100
                          Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 02:06 -0400
                            Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:18 +0100
                              Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 00:51 -0400
                      Re: The hammer is best Joed Oakes <lost@noway.home.invalid> - 2026-08-23 19:42 -0400
                        Re: The hammer is best Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-23 23:56 +0000
                          Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-24 02:25 -0400
                        Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-24 01:14 +0000
                        Re: The hammer is best "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-24 09:50 +0200
                          Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 00:56 -0400
                      Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-24 00:53 -0400
                        Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-24 06:42 +0000
                          Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-24 23:34 -0400
                            Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 04:08 +0000
                              Re: The hammer is best "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-25 11:29 +0200
                                Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 18:52 +0000
                                  Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 04:19 -0400
                                    Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 09:29 +0100
                                      Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 17:03 +0000
                                        Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 21:31 +0100
                                Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 22:18 -0400
                        Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-24 11:28 +0100
                          Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 02:07 -0400
                            Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 06:39 +0000
                              Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:23 +0100
                                Re: The hammer is best Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-25 18:26 +0000
                                  Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 20:05 +0100
                                    Re: The hammer is best "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-25 21:43 +0200
                                      Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 08:35 +0100
                                    Re: The hammer is best Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-25 20:21 +0000
                                      Re: The hammer is best "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-25 23:14 +0200
                                Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 19:08 +0000
                                  Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 04:38 -0400
                                    Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 10:22 +0100
                                      Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 17:26 +0000
                                Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 01:49 -0400
                            Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:20 +0100
                              Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 01:23 -0400
                  Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-23 22:16 -0400
        Re: /dev/tcp Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2026-08-21 13:41 +0100
          Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-21 22:58 +0000
          Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-21 22:28 -0400
            ksh (was: /dev/tcp) Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2026-08-24 13:56 +0100
              Bash vs. ksh - Does it matter? And the 'vi' mode thing... (Was: ksh (was: /dev/tcp)) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-08-24 14:57 +0000
              Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-24 21:08 +0000
                Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-08-24 21:28 +0000
                Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 01:11 +0000
                Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2026-08-25 13:25 +0100
                  Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-25 21:58 +0000
                    Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2026-08-26 13:34 +0100
              Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 02:25 -0400
                Re: ksh rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 06:52 +0000
                  Re: ksh The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:27 +0100
                    Re: ksh Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-25 18:26 +0000
                      Re: ksh Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-25 22:03 +0000
                      Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 04:04 -0400
                        Re: ksh rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 18:00 +0000
                    Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 02:35 -0400
                      Re: ksh rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 18:17 +0000
                Re: ksh Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-08-25 09:56 +0200
                  Re: ksh "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-25 11:24 +0200
                    Re: ksh Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-08-25 20:36 +0200
                      Re: ksh rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 04:23 +0000
                        Re: ksh "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-26 10:04 +0200
                          Re: ksh Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 10:03 +0100
                    Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 21:50 -0400
                  Re: ksh The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:27 +0100
                    Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 02:43 -0400
                  Re: ksh Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-25 22:01 +0000
                    Re: ksh "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-26 01:32 +0200
                  Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 21:46 -0400
                    Re: ksh rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 04:25 +0000
      Re: /dev/tcp Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2026-08-20 18:22 +0000
        Re: /dev/tcp The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-21 13:57 +0100
    Re: /dev/tcp Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-08-23 06:37 -0700
      Re: /dev/tcp Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-23 14:49 +0100
      Re: /dev/tcp The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-23 16:13 +0100
      Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-23 22:31 +0000
        Re: /dev/tcp Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-24 19:08 +0100

Page 7 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]

#90590 — Re: ksh

On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 20:36:14 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:

> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>On 2026-08-25 09:56, Marco Moock wrote:
>>> Am 25.08.26 um 08:25 schrieb c186282:
>>>>
>>>>    But for a LONG LONG time, most everybody goes with Bash.
>>> 
>>> Because it is standard in most Linux distributions and they are most
>>> widespread now.
>>> 
>>> 
>>Well... ksh is installed by default on opensuse. I don't remember the
>>name of other shells to check. tcsh? It is there. AFAIK all shells are
>>available, but the majority of people choose bash.
> 
> It's the default everywhere. The fact that other shells are installed
> makes it easier for people wanting them to configure their accounts, but
> in the default you get bash. And many users don't know about the
> alternatives.

I just upgraded? from Leap 16 to Tumbleweed so I can't be positive 
something wasn't lost in the translation, but there is no ksh.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90610 — Re: ksh

On 2026-08-26 06:23, rbowman wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 20:36:14 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> 
>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2026-08-25 09:56, Marco Moock wrote:
>>>> Am 25.08.26 um 08:25 schrieb c186282:
>>>>>
>>>>>     But for a LONG LONG time, most everybody goes with Bash.
>>>>
>>>> Because it is standard in most Linux distributions and they are most
>>>> widespread now.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Well... ksh is installed by default on opensuse. I don't remember the
>>> name of other shells to check. tcsh? It is there. AFAIK all shells are
>>> available, but the majority of people choose bash.
>>
>> It's the default everywhere. The fact that other shells are installed
>> makes it easier for people wanting them to configure their accounts, but
>> in the default you get bash. And many users don't know about the
>> alternatives.
> 
> I just upgraded? from Leap 16 to Tumbleweed so I can't be positive
> something wasn't lost in the translation, but there is no ksh.

Interesting.

I just looked in a more recently installed Leap, and it has kshell5, not 
ksh.

I don't know what that is. The rpm is "kinit". For kdeinit, a process 
launcher. So, no ksh either.


> 


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90623 — Re: ksh

On 2026-08-26, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> On 2026-08-26 06:23, rbowman wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 20:36:14 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
>>
>>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2026-08-25 09:56, Marco Moock wrote:
>>>>> Am 25.08.26 um 08:25 schrieb c186282:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     But for a LONG LONG time, most everybody goes with Bash.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because it is standard in most Linux distributions and they are most
>>>>> widespread now.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Well... ksh is installed by default on opensuse. I don't remember the
>>>> name of other shells to check. tcsh? It is there. AFAIK all shells are
>>>> available, but the majority of people choose bash.
>>>
>>> It's the default everywhere. The fact that other shells are installed
>>> makes it easier for people wanting them to configure their accounts, but
>>> in the default you get bash. And many users don't know about the
>>> alternatives.
>>
>> I just upgraded? from Leap 16 to Tumbleweed so I can't be positive
>> something wasn't lost in the translation, but there is no ksh.
>
> Interesting.
>
> I just looked in a more recently installed Leap, and it has kshell5,
> not ksh.
>
> I don't know what that is. The rpm is "kinit". For kdeinit, a process
> launcher. So, no ksh either.

My guess would be the shell (in the sense of EXPLORER.EXE) for KDE 5.

-- 
Nuno Silva

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90579 — Re: ksh

On 8/25/26 05:24, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2026-08-25 09:56, Marco Moock wrote:
>> Am 25.08.26 um 08:25 schrieb c186282:
>>>
>>>    But for a LONG LONG time, most everybody goes
>>>    with Bash.
>>
>> Because it is standard in most Linux distributions and they are most 
>> widespread now.
>>
> 
> Well... ksh is installed by default on opensuse. I don't remember the 
> name of other shells to check. tcsh? It is there. AFAIK all shells are 
> available, but the majority of people choose bash.
> 
> Back in 1998 I choose bash, because it seemed other people were also 
> using it.
> 
> I don't know if my machine contains scripts in other shells, provided by 
> the distro.

   Well, shells, to each their own. There are a LOT of
   shell pgms. Z-shell is fairly popular, tcsh is still
   used, ksh as well. You can install all of them quite
   easily if you want - but then WILL have to specify
   which one yer script is using in a shebang.

   These days, unless it's super simple, I only use
   Python scripts - bash/ksh/whatever is just a handy
   launcher.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90524 — Re: ksh

On 25/08/2026 08:56, Marco Moock wrote:
> Am 25.08.26 um 08:25 schrieb c186282:
>>
>>    But for a LONG LONG time, most everybody goes
>>    with Bash.
> 
> Because it is standard in most Linux distributions and they are most 
> widespread now.
> 
Yeah, Unless there is a real good reason, go with the herd

-- 
"Nature does not give up the winter because people dislike the cold."

― Confucius

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90598 — Re: ksh

On 8/25/26 07:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 25/08/2026 08:56, Marco Moock wrote:
>> Am 25.08.26 um 08:25 schrieb c186282:
>>>
>>>    But for a LONG LONG time, most everybody goes
>>>    with Bash.
>>
>> Because it is standard in most Linux distributions and they are most 
>> widespread now.
>>
> Yeah, Unless there is a real good reason, go with the herd

   Really, NOT any 'good reason' - so go with bash.

   I have tcsh and z-shell installed, but haven't
   used them for anything in decades. ksh is kinda
   bash-like, but, these days, what's the point ?

   Essentially, I see bash as a convenient way to
   launch Python scripts now. Most any shell can
   do that, but bash is *everywhere*.

   USED to write much longer/complex scripts for
   bash ... but now, why bother ??? Python does
   SO much more SO much more easily/comprehensibly.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90574 — Re: ksh

On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 09:56:04 +0200, Marco Moock wrote:

> Because [bash] is standard in most Linux distributions and they are
> most widespread now.

It is the most popular shell for interactive use, user scripts etc.

But note that many Linux distributions (including Debian and
derivatives) are careful not to conflate “/bin/sh” with bash. They
typically ensure that the “sh” and “/bin/sh” commands invoke a closely
POSIX-compliant shell of some description; if the writer of a shell
script wants to rely on bash functionality, they explicitly say so
with “/bin/bash” on the shebang line.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90576 — Re: ksh

On 2026-08-26 00:01, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 09:56:04 +0200, Marco Moock wrote:
> 
>> Because [bash] is standard in most Linux distributions and they are
>> most widespread now.
> 
> It is the most popular shell for interactive use, user scripts etc.
> 
> But note that many Linux distributions (including Debian and
> derivatives) are careful not to conflate “/bin/sh” with bash. They
> typically ensure that the “sh” and “/bin/sh” commands invoke a closely
> POSIX-compliant shell of some description; if the writer of a shell
> script wants to rely on bash functionality, they explicitly say so
> with “/bin/bash” on the shebang line.

I always write “/bin/bash” on the shebang line, even if I could use sh. 
bash is what I know, so that is what I use, and I say so in the script. 
I don't care for sh.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90578 — Re: ksh

On 8/25/26 03:56, Marco Moock wrote:
> Am 25.08.26 um 08:25 schrieb c186282:
>>
>>    But for a LONG LONG time, most everybody goes
>>    with Bash.
> 
> Because it is standard in most Linux distributions and they are most 
> widespread now.

   Super-easy to install a bunch of other shells. I have tcsh
   installed too ... just never found much reason to use it.
   Unless it's something very short/simple I don't use bash
   for much either, except as a handy launcher for Python scripts.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90591 — Re: ksh

On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 21:46:21 -0400, c186282 wrote:

>    Super-easy to install a bunch of other shells. I have tcsh installed
>    too ... just never found much reason to use it.

I used it before everyone went to bash. I did have to rewrite some of my 
aliases to bash functions. bash aliases are rather simple minded.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90226

In comp.os.linux.misc, Rich  <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
>> What system(s) have /dev/tcp/* natively?
> What "systems"?  Only those with a /bin/bash compiled with this 
> "special bash feature" compiled in.

None is a potential answer.

>>        Bash handles several filenames specially when they are used in
>>        redirections,  as described  in the  following table.   If the
                                                                  ^^^^^^
>>        operating  system on  which  bash is  running  provides  these
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>        special files, bash will use them;  other wise it will emulate
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>        them internally with the behavior described below.

> It's a Bash feature.  Note the man page quote you provided:
>>  **Bash** handles several filenames specially when they are used in 
>>  redirections

Note the underlined bit. In my mind "emulate" implies there is a thing
that does this, because the dictionary definition of "emulate" is very
close to "immitate".

From WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006) [wn]:
 
  emulate
      v 1: strive to equal or match, especially by imitating; "He is
           emulating the skating skills of his older sister"
      2: imitate the function of (another system), as by modifying the
         hardware or the software
      3: compete with successfully; approach or reach equality with;
         "This artist's drawings cannot emulate his water colors"

Note how there is nothing there about "make up whole cloth" or
"completely implement without reference to something else."

Elijah
------
realizes some documentation is fiction

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90282

On 20/08/2026 19:22, Eli the Bearded wrote:
> Note the underlined bit. In my mind "emulate" implies there is a thing
> that does this, because the dictionary definition of "emulate" is very
> close to "imitate".

Emulation carries a strong implication of arriving at the same result by 
a radically different means, whereas imitate attempts to simply 
duplicate the method.
e.g. software models emulate the real world, they do not imitate it.



-- 
“It is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of 
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people 
who pay no price for being wrong.”

Thomas Sowell

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90397

On 2026-08-19 14:20, Eli the Bearded wrote:
> What system(s) have /dev/tcp/* natively?
>    [...]
>                /dev/tcp/host/port
> 		  If  host  is a valid  hostname or Internet address,
> 		  and port is an integer port number or service name,
> 		  bash attempts to open the corresponding TCP socket.

After several days, we have now ascertained that nobody ever implemented 
this with a true device interface - it is a fiction implemented by the 
shell intercepting the filename and diverting it.

Which is kinda strange. It seems like it should be easier to really do 
it as a true device interface. It would be easier for quick-and-dirty 
programs than the socket interface. Maybe the problem is the DNS lookup 
would have to be done below the kernel boundary? But would it really be 
that much harder than the weird stuff done with virtual file systems?

-- 
Lars Poulsen - an old geek in Santa Barbara, California

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90398

Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> writes:
> Eli the Bearded wrote:
>> What system(s) have /dev/tcp/* natively?
>>    [...]
>>                /dev/tcp/host/port
>> 		  If  host  is a valid  hostname or Internet address,
>> 		  and port is an integer port number or service name,
>> 		  bash attempts to open the corresponding TCP socket.
>
> After several days, we have now ascertained that nobody ever
> implemented this with a true device interface - it is a fiction
> implemented by the shell intercepting the filename and diverting it.
>
> Which is kinda strange. It seems like it should be easier to really do
> it as a true device interface. It would be easier for quick-and-dirty
> programs than the socket interface.

A magic filename would only be useful if it worked everywhere or if you
were only targetting the platform(s) that supported it. All the failure
modes would have to be compressed into a single errno value.

In contrast getaddrinfo+socket+connect is only a few lines of code, it
works everywhere, and you can easily tell the end user which part of the
process failed, when it doesn’t work.

> Maybe the problem is the DNS lookup would have to be done below the
> kernel boundary? But would it really be that much harder than the
> weird stuff done with virtual file systems?

The Linux kernel can already call up to userspace to do DNS lookups:
https://docs.kernel.org/networking/dns_resolver.html

-- 
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90400

On 23/08/2026 14:37, Lars Poulsen wrote:
> On 2026-08-19 14:20, Eli the Bearded wrote:
>> What system(s) have /dev/tcp/* natively?
>>    [...]
>>                /dev/tcp/host/port
>>           If  host  is a valid  hostname or Internet address,
>>           and port is an integer port number or service name,
>>           bash attempts to open the corresponding TCP socket.
> 
> After several days, we have now ascertained that nobody ever implemented 
> this with a true device interface - it is a fiction implemented by the 
> shell intercepting the filename and diverting it.
> 

All interfaces are fiction. In this case its one implemented by the shell

> Which is kinda strange. It seems like it should be easier to really do 
> it as a true device interface. It would be easier for quick-and-dirty 
> programs than the socket interface. Maybe the problem is the DNS lookup 
> would have to be done below the kernel boundary? But would it really be 
> that much harder than the weird stuff done with virtual file systems?
> 
Sockets were always crap. There are other options for specific 
connections e.g. curl and friends.

-- 
“when things get difficult you just have to lie”

― Jean Claud Jüncker

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90415

On Sun, 23 Aug 2026 06:37:19 -0700, Lars Poulsen wrote:

> After several days, we have now ascertained that nobody ever
> implemented this with a true device interface - it is a fiction
> implemented by the shell intercepting the filename and diverting it.
>
> Which is kinda strange. It seems like it should be easier to really
> do it as a true device interface. It would be easier for
> quick-and-dirty programs than the socket interface.

Plan9 did something like this at the kernel level. The approach never
caught on anywhere else. Perhaps because it’s a waste of time ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90456

Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
> Lars Poulsen wrote:
>> After several days, we have now ascertained that nobody ever
>> implemented this with a true device interface - it is a fiction
>> implemented by the shell intercepting the filename and diverting it.
>>
>> Which is kinda strange. It seems like it should be easier to really
>> do it as a true device interface. It would be easier for
>> quick-and-dirty programs than the socket interface.
>
> Plan9 did something like this at the kernel level.

Not really. The Plan9 network API is more file-based than the sockets
API, but it’s not particularly similar the hostname-in-filename model
offered by Bash. Rather it is, roughly speaking, the sockets API
rephrased as open()/read()/write(). For example to create a connection,
socket() would be replaced by open("/net/tcp/clone") and connect() would
be replaced by write(fd, "connect address!port").

See https://9p.io/magic/man2html/3/ip for details.

-- 
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 7 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web