Sak Wathanasin wrote:
> It seems to me that it wasn't the alias that was the problem, it was
> caused by whoever created the new version. The thing to do there,
> IMHO, was to dup the original folder, rename it to "copy of the
> mm/dd/yyyy" and put the up-to-date contents where all the aliases
> were pointing. Same as you would do on a Unix system with sym-links.
Err....I think you're wasting some resources when doing that.
Did you ever notice that symlinks _can_ point to "nothing"? Even a
non-existent file/directory?
Try typing an 'ln -s /a/non/existent/thing mysymlink' ... and then do a 'ls
-l' .
This is why they are interesting above hardlinks, and also why they are
_not_ the same as aliases, be them aliases in the MacOS or Windows world,
btw...
Symlinks are not _linked_ to anything, they just _point_ to what you want to
name....
Just to clarify a bit as a long-time Unix user... ;-)
--
Thierry Michalowski /
Edipresse Publications S.A \\\' , / //
Informatique de Production \\\// _/ //'
33,av. de la gare \_-//' / //'
1001 LAUSANNE SUISSE \ /// //'
phone: +41 21 349 46 26 / >> \\\`
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] /,)-^>> _\`
(/ \\ / \\\
"Unix is user-friendly... // //\\\
It is just selective about who its friends are" ((`
============================================================================
This message has been checked with GRIMEsweeper which has detected a virus
embedded in this plain text message. You should now delete your entire hard
drive and rinse your eyes with soapy water to ensure it doesn't spread.
