are links as useful...
H. Munster
Line eater: yep
In article <10...@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, man...@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu
(System Mangler) types:
>Symbolic links are too expensive to use freely. They take up
>an inode and 1K of disk space, just to hold a few characters.
>They carry all the baggage of a regular inode (atime, mtime,
>links, owner, group, mode) but you can't make proper use of
>any of it.
That may be, but I've rather have a symbolic link taking up a 1k block
than make a copy of a 10M file.
---
It's been said by many a wise philosopher that when you die and your soul
goes to its final resting place, it has to make a connection in Atlanta.
Dave Cornutt, Gould Computer Systems, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
UUCP: ...{sun,pur-ee,brl-bmd}!gould!dcornutt
or ...!ucf-cs!novavax!houligan!dcornutt
ARPA: wait a minute, I've almost got it...
"The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of my employer,
not necessarily mine, and probably not necessary."
Guy Harris
> than make a copy of a 10M file.
That may be, but if you'd read Don Speck's original article carefully, you'd
have seen that he did NOT suggest doing away with symbolic links; he
suggested that they be implemented as a different kind of directory entry -
one containing two path names, presumably - rather than as a different kind
of inode.
--
Guy Harris
{ihnp4, decvax, seismo, decwrl, ...}!sun!guy
g...@sun.com (or g...@sun.arpa)