

On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 06:02:02PM +0000, Filipe Varela wrote:
Hi all

I'll clarify my question as i seem to have failed to make it clear.

My point is: Isn't it wrong to use the term unix sockets for local
domain sockets? This isn't a tecnical question or a failure to
understand what sockets are, what varieties exist and for what
purposes each can be used (and what goodies each type provides). It's
a failure to understand why the term unix sockets is used to
designate local domain sockets.

The point in using the tcp/udp example is that contrary to popular
designation, the sentence "doing tcp/udp is impossible with unix
sockets because unix sockets are local domain sockets" is false. Unix
sockets are the general class. While it's true that local domain
sokets do not use tcp/udp, it's false (and this is a conceptual stand
not an everyday unix jargon use) that unix sockets = local domain

No. There's the socket API, and then there's unix sockets. You can use
a api similar to sockets in windows, but you can't use unix sockets
(local domain sockets) in windows.

The socket API isn't limited to Unix based/like systems, but the unix
sockets, as far as I know, and I don't know *that* many different
operating systems, is.

Maybe an unfortunate name to call it, but it became the common one.


Attachment: pgpBEc7BrRAbp.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Relevant Pages