- From: Miles Sabin <miles@mistral.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 02:20:07 -0000
- To: <www-tag@w3.org>
Jeff Bone wrote, > > That's a good example, but it also does a good job of showing up > > the limitations of that sort of extremism. What are all those > > ioctls for if the Plan 9/UNIX model is really so uniform? Can you > > really accept() on a _file_ descriptor as opposed to a listening > > socket descriptor? Is the uniformity reality or ideology? > > Notice that I said Plan [9, woops] *vis-a-vis* UNIX. Plan 9 doesn't > have an ioctl call, AFAIK: It might not have something spelled "ioctl", but it must have its moral equivalent: there's a difference between a descriptor associated with a file on a tape drive and one associated with a listening socket, and that's got to be reflected _somewhere_ (either that or Plan 9 is lousy at dealing with one or other of tapes or sockets ;-) Cheers, Miles
Received on Tuesday, 26 March 2002 21:20:08 UTC