Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 11:12:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Jerry McAllister <jerrymc@clunix.cl.msu.edu> To: grog@FreeBSD.ORG (Greg 'groggy' Lehey) Cc: jerrymc@clunix.cl.msu.edu (Jerry McAllister), neuhauser@bellavista.cz (Roman Neuhauser), Hostmaster@Video2Video.Com (Peter Leftwich), m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk (Matthew Seaman), jeff@unixconsults.com (Jeff Jirsa), syborg@stny.rr.com (John Bleichert), FreeBSD-Questions@FreeBSD.ORG (FreeBSD LIST) Subject: Re: Links (was: Is simplicity despised? WAS: Message-ID: <200208091512.g79FCAN19969@clunix.cl.msu.edu> In-Reply-To: <20020808234634.GJ8561@wantadilla.lemis.com> from "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" at Aug 09, 2002 09:16:34 AM
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >>>
> >>> Because symlinks make it abundantly clear what is linked to what.
> >>> Hard links can lead to confusion. I suppose that's not a problem
> >>> For most of you though. But, for example, if a person doesn't know
> >>> which is linked to which, that person wouldn't know that more is
> >>> really less. They might think less is really more (if they discovered
> >>> it at all).
> >>
> >> No, less is not hardlinked to more, nor is more hardlinked to less.
> >> They're two names for the same file.
> >>
> >> So... Yes, you're right: less is really more. But at the same time,
> >> more is less.
> >
> > Yup. But was that file created as less or more
>
> Why should you care?
I care if I want to know how to change what the file is.
Do I rebuild more or less in this case? Probably less interesting
for such basic omnipresent system or shell stuff than for stuff I am
making myself and trying to keep track of.
>
> > and if I want to make a change do I start with the source for less
> > or more, etc?
>
> It's the same source.
No, there is a source for more and a source for less -- somewhere.
> > Minor maybe, but ln -s makes it clear and is not so onerrous in
> > most situations.
By onerous, I mean the extra resource and possible problems are not
so onerous a penalty for most use. If the use if heavy then possibly
the extra CPU and disk resource may mean something and a hard link
is then needed.
> No, symlinks impose an order, and they don't clarify, they obfuscate.
> If you do this, you'll end up with a broken symlink:
>
> $ echo foo > bar
> $ ln -s bar baz
> $ rm bar
> $ cat baz
> cat: baz: No such file or directory
> $
>
> On the other hand, links are *the* basic mechanism for naming files.
> If you do this, it will work:
>
> $ echo foo > bar
> $ ln bar baz
> $ rm bar
> $ cat baz
> foo
Sure. and if I do:
# echo joes stuff > ./home/joe.stuff
# echo freds stuff > ./home/fred.stuff
# ln joe ./home/jor.stuff
# ln fred ./home/joe.stuff
# rm joe
# cat fred
joes stuff
"Oh Oh better fix that"
# vi fred
c$freds stuff ESC:wq
# cat ./home/joe.stuff
freds stuff
A user error less likely to happen with a symlink since they show
up so obviously in an ls -l.
Hard links have their place. But, symlinks needn't be so quickly
dismissed.
////jerry
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200208091512.g79FCAN19969>