Very Computer

> does such thing exist in xp???

> does such thing exist in xp???

> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>  *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
>                       http://www.usenet.com
> Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

> does such thing exist in xp???

> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>  *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
>                       http://www.usenet.com
> Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

>> does such thing exist in xp???

> no!!!

> does such thing exist in xp???

>> does such thing exist in xp???

> In a way, yes, although the implementation is slightly
> unusual and only works for certain DLLs, as opposed to
> Linux's (and Unix's) transparent inode variant, which
> works for any process smart enough to know how to open
> a file via a syscall (or by the standard library, which
> eventually does the syscall on the process's behalf).

> A .LNK file is readily visible if one uses DIR; Explorer
> will show it as a shortcut.

> It is not clear whether shortcuts to files that aren't
> executables work (shortcuts to directories -- sorry,
> folders -- and to executables work as expected).

> It's a kludgey bodgy botch.  But it does work, in its
> own fashion.

> [.sigsnip]

>>> does such thing exist in xp???

>> no!!!

> Yes.

>>> linuxfux said something about Symbolic-link??:

>>>> does such thing exist in xp???

>>> no!!!

>> Yes.

> Maybe, but every time someone asks you how to create
> one you suddenly drop out of the thread.

>>>> linuxfux said something about Symbolic-link??:

>>>>> does such thing exist in xp???

>>>> no!!!

>>> Yes.

>> Maybe, but every time someone asks you how to create
>> one you suddenly drop out of the thread.

> Symlinks are supported by NTFS-5 and you can create them with third-party
> software like the MKS Toolkit, so they say. I don't know if it works in MKS
> like in Cygwin, as it's been at least five years since I've dealt with MKS.

> In Cygwin,
>   Files:
>     "ln -s" actually creates a Windows shortcut, which isn't the same (for
>     one thing, you have to append ".lnk" to the filename if you want to
>     access it with scripts. It's pretty pointless to use it for "symlinks".
>     However, "ln" does create a hard link to a file. The hardlinks do
>     work, both when you're in Cygwin and for Windows applications once the
>     links are created. There are some other utilities that do hard links
>     on Windows; search Google for "'hard link' Windows"

>   Directories:
>     Cygwin's "ls" utility does NOT create symlinks to directories, but
>     shortcuts. These are practically worthless, as they can't be used by
>     typing or pasting their names in file dialogs. Instead it's
>     click...click...click. Hardlinks are not allowed for directories, so
>     using ls on dirs isn't worth the effort.

> However, there's a utility called Junction on Sysinternals.com that lets
> you create symlinks to directories (but not files). They appear to be  
> proper symlinks and works across volumes and works for GUI apps and at the
> command line. However, XP's Explorer apparently doesn't know anything about
> symlinks, so you'll have to use Junction at the command line if you want to
> identify and manage them. It's useful enough that I'm using Junction to
> replace the shortcuts to other volumes that were in my "My Documents"
> partition (yes, I use an entire partition for that).

> Cygwin and Junction together give you much of what you get on Unix.  
> http://www.veryComputer.com/#junction

>> D. C. Sessions wrote on Friday 18 April 2003 10:52 in message

>>>>> linuxfux said something about Symbolic-link??:

>>>>>> does such thing exist in xp???

>>>>> no!!!

>>>> Yes.

>>> Maybe, but every time someone asks you how to create
>>> one you suddenly drop out of the thread.

>> Symlinks are supported by NTFS-5 and you can create them with third-party
>> software like the MKS Toolkit, so they say. I don't know if it works in
>> MKS like in Cygwin, as it's been at least five years since I've dealt
>> with MKS.

>> In Cygwin,
>>   Files:
>>     "ln -s" actually creates a Windows shortcut, which isn't the same
>>     (for one thing, you have to append ".lnk" to the filename if you want
>>     to access it with scripts. It's pretty pointless to use it for
>>     "symlinks". However, "ln" does create a hard link to a file. The
>>     hardlinks do work, both when you're in Cygwin and for Windows
>>     applications once the links are created. There are some other
>>     utilities that do hard links on Windows; search Google for "'hard
>>     link' Windows"

>>   Directories:
>>     Cygwin's "ls" utility does NOT create symlinks to directories, but
>>     shortcuts. These are practically worthless, as they can't be used by
>>     typing or pasting their names in file dialogs. Instead it's
>>     click...click...click. Hardlinks are not allowed for directories, so
>>     using ls on dirs isn't worth the effort.

>> However, there's a utility called Junction on Sysinternals.com that lets
>> you create symlinks to directories (but not files). They appear to be
>> proper symlinks and works across volumes and works for GUI apps and at
>> the command line. However, XP's Explorer apparently doesn't know anything
>> about symlinks, so you'll have to use Junction at the command line if you
>> want to identify and manage them. It's useful enough that I'm using
>> Junction to replace the shortcuts to other volumes that were in my "My
>> Documents" partition (yes, I use an entire partition for that).

>> Cygwin and Junction together give you much of what you get on Unix.
>> http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/source/misc.shtml#junction

> So, to sum up: MSWindows has limited hard-link capability, in that it
> can inode files (handy for message queueing) but not directories, which
> is a key use for them (in my experience more than half, but YMMV)

> In addition, there are workarounds which depend on the application
> and thus are likely to be more trouble than help, at least one of which
> works only for directories but not files.

> In none of these cases is there a way to actually create symbolic
> linkages at the OS/filesystem level, and the hard linkages which
> *are* at the OS/filesystem level aren't orthogonal.

> Does that sum it up adequately?