Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!uw-beaver!mit-eddie!mintaka!yale!cs.utexas.edu!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!psuvax1!rutgers!mcnc!decvax.dec.com!zinn!siia!drd
From: drd@siia.mv.com (David Dick)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer
Subject: Re: File "type"
Message-ID: <1990Sep27.145844.28546@siia.mv.com>
Date: 27 Sep 90 14:58:44 GMT
References: <171@alchemy.UUCP> <13114@june.cs.washington.edu> <12141@chaph.usc.edu>
Organization: Software Innovations, Inc.
Lines: 17

[initial query about file(1) and answers elided]

>Not all versions of 'file' use a separate database; I
>believe the 4.2BSD 'file' has it hardcoded. 

When we move a customer's applications to UNIX we often come 
up with new file types.  Part of fully integrating an application
to UNIX is establishing magic numbers and making file(1) work, IMHO.

Forcing a hard-coded database makes this difficult, as well as 
being silly (e.g., is the extra efficiency really needed?) and 
quite contrary to the original idea of editable
control files in UNIX.  (Of course, how many other things are there
in BSD UNIX that are contrary to the original idea of UNIX? :-)

David Dick
Software Innovations, Inc. [the Software Moving Company (sm)]