From owner-freebsd-current Thu Sep 14 2:49:14 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (wandering-wizard.cybercity.dk [212.242.44.236]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4231637B424; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 02:49:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from critter (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.11.0/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e8E9mwN56078; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:48:58 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: Peter Pentchev Cc: Julian Elischer , Chris Costello , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Fdescfs updates--coming to a devfs near you! In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:39:45 +0300." <20000914123945.A32524@ringwraith.office1.bg> Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:48:58 +0200 Message-ID: <56076.968924938@critter> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <20000914123945.A32524@ringwraith.office1.bg>, Peter Pentchev writes : >On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 01:12:10AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: >> I've never thought of a use for fdescfs... > >Well.. just a trivial example - imagine a program which takes a filename >as an argument; imagine yourself trying to pipe something into it - >passing /dev/fd/0 as a filename to process would do the trick. I must admit that I think in general that /dev/std{in,out,err} and /dev/fd is bogus. It looks like something which happened "because we can" more than something which has a legitimate need. If anything I would propose we ditch it... -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD coreteam member | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message