From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: Symbolic links vs hard links Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 10:42:02 -0700 Message-ID: <20070110174202.GH21967@parisc-linux.org> References: <20070110000231.GC9819@parisc-linux.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: arjan@infradead.org, bhalevy@panasas.com, jaharkes@cs.cmu.edu, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Miklos Szeredi , mikulas@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, nfsv4@ietf.org, pavel@ucw.cz, Steven Rostedt Return-path: Received: from palinux.external.hp.com ([192.25.206.14]:60849 "EHLO mail.parisc-linux.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964963AbXAJRmE (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jan 2007 12:42:04 -0500 To: Bryan Henderson Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 09:38:11AM -0800, Bryan Henderson wrote: > >Other people are of the opinion that the invention of the symbolic link > >was a huge mistake. > > I guess I haven't heard that one. What is the argument that we were > better off without symbolic links? I suppose http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/lexnames.html is as good a presentation of that argument as any, though there's also some good stuff in the Unix Haters Handbook (pages 164-165 in particular).