From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Aug 24 3:24: 1 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mailhub.fokus.gmd.de (mailhub.fokus.gmd.de [193.174.154.14]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5F9437B406 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 03:23:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from brandt@fokus.gmd.de) Received: from beagle (beagle [193.175.132.100]) by mailhub.fokus.gmd.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA16195; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 12:23:36 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 12:23:36 +0200 (CEST) From: Harti Brandt To: "Eugene L. Vorokov" Cc: Erik Trulsson , Subject: Re: Re: Why is csh tcsh? This can be a bad thing... In-Reply-To: <200108241002.f7OA23m01583@bugz.infotecs.ru> Message-ID: <20010824121953.K43940-100000@beagle.fokus.gmd.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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