Symbolic-link??

Symbolic-link??

Post by linuxfu » Tue, 15 Apr 2003 09:12:48



**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

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
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 
 
 

Symbolic-link??

Post by Iain D Broadfoo » Tue, 15 Apr 2003 13:56:52


linuxfux said something about Symbolic-link??:

Quote:

> does such thing exist in xp???

no!!!

--
wh33, y1p33 3tc.

"If sharing a thing in no way diminishes it, it is not rightly owned if it is
not shared." -St. Augustine

 
 
 

Symbolic-link??

Post by linuxfu » Tue, 15 Apr 2003 14:51:06


**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****


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

> > does such thing exist in xp???

> no!!!

Ahh... But isn't it one of requirements for an decent OS?? M$ doesn't
know about this?!!

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

 
 
 

Symbolic-link??

Post by mathew » Tue, 15 Apr 2003 15:34:06



> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

> does such thing exist in xp???

Simon Cooke and others talked about this a while ago, although I think that
discussion was about Windows 2000.
 
 
 

Symbolic-link??

Post by Nash » Tue, 15 Apr 2003 18:40:21



> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

> 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
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Yeah, it's called a "URL".

Nash.

 
 
 

Symbolic-link??

Post by Tum » Tue, 15 Apr 2003 18:54:58


If you're using NTFS you can make symbolic links to directories.  It's
pretty limited but better than nothing I suppose.

Try this: http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/source/misc.shtml#junction


> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

> 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
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 
 
 

Symbolic-link??

Post by The Ghost In The Machin » Wed, 16 Apr 2003 16:14:19


In comp.os.linux.advocacy, linuxfux

 wrote
on 14 Apr 2003 15:12:48 +0800

Quote:> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

> 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]

--

It's still legal to go .sigless.

 
 
 

Symbolic-link??

Post by Simon Cook » Fri, 18 Apr 2003 21:05:08



> linuxfux said something about Symbolic-link??:

>> does such thing exist in xp???

> no!!!

Yes.
--
Coming Soon: UNSEALED (see IMDB)
 
 
 

Symbolic-link??

Post by Simon Cook » Fri, 18 Apr 2003 21:05:13



> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

> does such thing exist in xp???

Yes. The question is, why ask in a newsgroup like this?

--
Coming Soon: UNSEALED (see IMDB)

 
 
 

Symbolic-link??

Post by Simon Cook » Fri, 18 Apr 2003 21:06:14



> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, linuxfux

>  wrote
> on 14 Apr 2003 15:12:48 +0800

>> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

>> 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]

That's not the same thing, TGITM.

--
Coming Soon: UNSEALED (see IMDB)

 
 
 

Symbolic-link??

Post by D. C. Session » Sat, 19 Apr 2003 17:52:59




>> 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.

--
begin  signature.vbs
|      In the course of every project there comes a time        |
|         when the best de* is a can of gasoline.          |

 
 
 

Symbolic-link??

Post by Mark » Sat, 19 Apr 2003 19:38:14




:

:>> 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.

 
 
 

Symbolic-link??

Post by Dave Leig » Sat, 19 Apr 2003 21:46:50


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

--
Dave Leigh, Consulting Systems Analyst
Cratchit.org

 
 
 

Symbolic-link??

Post by D. C. Session » Sun, 20 Apr 2003 17:28:10



> 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.veryComputer.com/#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?

--
begin  signature.vbs
|      In the course of every project there comes a time        |
|         when the best de* is a can of gasoline.          |

 
 
 

Symbolic-link??

Post by Dave Leig » Sun, 20 Apr 2003 22:11:39


D. C. Sessions wrote on Saturday 19 April 2003 10:28 in message


>> 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?

Just about. You *can* create create symbolic links at the OS/filesystem
level for directories only. The API is there, but the command to expose it
to a user is provided by a third party.

--
Dave Leigh, Consulting Systems Analyst
Cratchit.org

 
 
 

1. Too many symbolic links, Symbolic link loop

Hello,

I'm fighting with a FreeBSD machine. Roughly what I'm up to: I clean
installed FreeBSD, with the DES option. The goal is to set up an Apache
on the machine. Then I performed a rdist from a BSDI machine, importing
stuff like password file, user directories, user quotas, shells. The
Apache works
just fine, but when I try to run Perl I get stuck with the error
message:
"Too many symbolic links" (under bash), "Symbolic link loop" (under sh).
I've
scanned through my symbolic links w/o finding something striking.
Basically, the
links I have are "shortcuts to shells", some links to user logs...
Anyone seen this kind of problem? Anyone solved it? How?

        Cheers

                Michael
--
Michael Hallgren, Easynet France
Write : http://www.loria.fr/tex
Play : http://www.perl.com/perl

2. 'statit' performance monitoring utility

3. Symbolic-Link File Determination

4. LILO append="aha152x=0x340,11,7,1" problem

5. symbolic link not a real link

6. SSL Anyone?

7. kill symbolic link along with the linked file?

8. Web Dev. Strategies w/Apache ?

9. symbolic link not a real link

10. regular link of a symbolic link

11. A hard link or a symbolic link?

12. find: cannot follow symbolic link sym-link

13. symbolic link with flags on link?