Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 12:23:36 +0200 (CEST) From: Harti Brandt <brandt@fokus.gmd.de> To: "Eugene L. Vorokov" <vel@bugz.infotecs.ru> Cc: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se>, <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Re: Why is csh tcsh? This can be a bad thing... Message-ID: <20010824121953.K43940-100000@beagle.fokus.gmd.de> In-Reply-To: <200108241002.f7OA23m01583@bugz.infotecs.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 24 Aug 2001, Eugene L. Vorokov wrote: ELV>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 01:45:48PM +0400, Eugene L. Vorokov wrote: ELV>> > > > It's kinda late in the process to be complaining about this, but I just noticed this myself... ELV>> > ELV>> > Why not just symlink csh to tcsh then ? ELV>> ELV>> Because csh is hardlinked to tcsh instead. ELV> ELV>Oh well, I missed that. But I think symlink would do just the same, ELV>but it would be more obvious for user that csh is now the same thing ELV>as tcsh. Is there any situation where symlink would not do the job ELV>but hardlink would ? Probably not, but a hard link is faster (just for the case when invoking csh is the bottleneck in your application :-) And the symbolic link costs you an i-node. harti -- harti brandt, http://www.fokus.gmd.de/research/cc/cats/employees/hartmut.brandt/private brandt@fokus.fhg.de To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010824121953.K43940-100000>