From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 15 May 2001 15:23:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 15 May 2001 15:23:45 -0400 Received: from neon-gw.transmeta.com ([209.10.217.66]:33285 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 15 May 2001 15:23:40 -0400 Message-ID: <3B018231.7D2D503A@transmeta.com> Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 12:23:29 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Organization: Transmeta Corporation X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.5-pre1-zisofs i686) X-Accept-Language: en, sv, no, da, es, fr, ja MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linus Torvalds CC: Johannes Erdfelt , James Simmons , Alexander Viro , Alan Cox , Neil Brown , Jeff Garzik , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Linus Torvalds wrote: > > But no, I don't actually like sockets all that much myself. They are hard > to use from scripts, and many more people are familiar with open/close and > read/write. > I always thought it was really strange that I couldn't open() a AF_UNIX socket in order to write() to it (as a stream socket, of course.) It really makes a lot of things harder to do than it needs to be, and I would still like to see this generalization done. That being said, if USB exported a filesystem I don't see any good reason why you shouldn't be able to advertise "socket" (S_ISSOCK()) objects and simply have them accept open("/dev/usb/blah/blah") instead of connect(AF_USB, ...) -- and still use send() and recv() where it is more appropriate to do so than using read() and write(). -hpa -- at work, in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt