Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #90165 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-08-19 21:20 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-08-24 19:08 +0100 |
| Articles | 13 on this page of 93 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
/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 "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 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:12 +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 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 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 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:20 +0100
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 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 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 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:27 +0100
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 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 02:25 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <UaqcnZ45f_v9qBD3nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90452 |
On 8/24/26 08:56, Geoff Clare wrote: > c186282 wrote: > >> On 8/21/26 08:41, Geoff Clare wrote: >>> >>> According to https://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ/061 the feature was >>> added to bash in version 2.04 and was "Copied from / Inspired by" ksh93. >>> >>> It certainly works in the versions of ksh93 I have. >> >> You run ksh93 ??? >> >> Not too many Kornies left these days :-) > > Ksh has been my preferred interactive shell since I first started using > SVR4-based systems in the late 80's. Well, we like what we like. But for a LONG LONG time, most everybody goes with Bash. DO have a c-shell installed, always do, but have not USED it for anything in 20 years. Also always install a FORTH ... but again haven't USED it for anything in 20+ years. Always install a COBOL too ... HAVE used it to make a few odd things - but mostly to "keep my hand in", nothing important. > Prior to that I used something called wash, short for Warwick Shell > (a version of Bourne Shell with added interactive history, written by > some folks - students I assume - at Warwick University in the UK). > Wash's history mechanism used control characters for all the editing, > which as a vi user I hated. Once I discovered ksh's vi mode I never > looked back. > > I use bash as a fallback when ksh isn't available, but a few things > in its vi mode don't quite work the same way. No. Anyway, for an interpreted script lang these days, PYTHON. Massively better in every way than the old shit. Ya usually need ONE of the old script langs to RUN Python however, but there are shortcuts. Some kind of "Bash-E", ONLY meant to start other scripts, would not be a bad idea.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 06:52 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <nf4sd4F5rktU46@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90491 |
On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 02:25:36 -0400, c186282 wrote: > DO have a c-shell installed, always do, but have not USED it for > anything in 20 years. Also always install a FORTH ... but again > haven't USED it for anything in 20+ years. https://wellys.com/posts/rp2040_forth/ I briefly thought about playing with this -- very briefly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 12:27 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <116ju6j$3l7js$13@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90496 |
On 25/08/2026 07:52, rbowman wrote: > On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 02:25:36 -0400, c186282 wrote: > >> DO have a c-shell installed, always do, but have not USED it for >> anything in 20 years. Also always install a FORTH ... but again >> haven't USED it for anything in 20+ years. > > https://wellys.com/posts/rp2040_forth/ > > I briefly thought about playing with this -- very briefly. I was paid to retype around 200 pages of 8086 assembler from a magazine scan in to create a FORTH interpreter. I think it took about 3-4 weeks. I raised my mental hat to the idea of it, but I was never tempted to use it By that time C compilers, 32 bit chips and many megabytes of RAM were cheap enough to make it not my first choice. -- No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 09:56 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <116jhqk$3i5q2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90491 |
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. -- Gruß Marco Please send unsolicited mail to dustbin12@stinkedores.dorfdsl.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 11:24 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <qi30mmxkn3.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #90502 |
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. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 12:27 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <116ju7k$3l7js$14@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90502 |
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]
| From | Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-20 18:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <eli$2608201422@qaz.wtf> |
| In reply to | #90207 |
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]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-21 13:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1169hve$9sqa$14@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90226 |
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]
| From | Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-23 06:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <116et2h$1v2in$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90165 |
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]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-23 14:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <wwv33w5aquz.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #90397 |
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]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-23 16:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <116f2m6$20v0e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90397 |
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]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-23 22:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <116fsce$29a3t$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90397 |
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]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-24 19:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <wwvqzjns86f.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #90415 |
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 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web