I'm looking for some historic info about the null device.

Given that it works like an always empty file, I wonder why it was called /dev/null instead of (for example) /dev/empty.

Several sources suggest to "think of /dev/null as a black hole" but in this case it file should block a read() syscall forever, not simply return an end of file.
My insight is that if you look inside a black hole, you don't simply see nothing, you never see.

If you wonder how such behavior could be actually useful, you should notice that on unix an "always blocking file" could be used to wait for signals.

The FreeBSD's manual page states that "A null device appeared in Version 7 AT&T UNIX" but I can't find any reference or hint about why that name was originally taken.

If it turns out that the name was originally used in a more ancient OS, I'd like to know how the original device worked and why the name was chosen.

Obviously I'm not looking about opinions about the device or its name, only references about its history.

I'm looking for some historic info about the null device. Why was it called /dev/null instead of (for example) /dev/empty?

FreeBSD's manual page states that "A null device appeared in Version 7 AT&T UNIX" but I can't find any reference or hint about why that name was originally chosen.

If it turns out that the name was originally used in a more ancient OS, I'd like to know how the original device worked and why that name was chosen.

I'm looking for some historic info about the null device.

Given that it works like an always empty file, I wonder why it was called /dev/null instead of /dev/empty. Is there any OS that actually call it this way?

This because I expected a null file to block a read() syscall forever, not simply return an end of file.
My insight is that if you look inside a black hole, you don't simply see nothing, you never see.

If you wonder how such behavior could be actually useful, you should notice that on unix an "always blocking file" could be used to wait for signals.

I'm looking for some historic info about the null device.

Given that it works like an always empty file, I wonder why it was called /dev/null instead of (for example) /dev/empty.

Several sources suggest to "think of /dev/null as a black hole" but in this case it file should block a read() syscall forever, not simply return an end of file.
My insight is that if you look inside a black hole, you don't simply see nothing, you never see.

If you wonder how such behavior could be actually useful, you should notice that on unix an "always blocking file" could be used to wait for signals.

The FreeBSD's manual page states that "A null device appeared in Version 7 AT&T UNIX" but I can't find any reference or hint about why that name was originally taken.

If it turns out that the name was originally used in a more ancient OS, I'd like to know how the original device worked and why the name was chosen.

Obviously I'm not looking about opinions about the device or its name, only references about its history.

I'm looking for some historic info about the null device.

Given that it works like an always empty file, I wonder why it was called /dev/null instead of /dev/empty. Is there any OS that actually call it this way?

This because I expected a null file to block a read() syscall forever, not simply return an end of file.

I'm looking for some historic info about the null device.

Given that it works like an always empty file, I wonder why it was called /dev/null instead of /dev/empty. Is there any OS that actually call it this way?

This because I expected a null file to block a read() syscall forever, not simply return an end of file.
My insight is that if you look inside a black hole, you don't simply see nothing, you never see.

If you wonder how such behavior could be actually useful, you should notice that on unix an "always blocking file" could be used to wait for signals.