On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, Michael Merritt wrote:
>
> Could a hard link also be referred to as a copy? I know it is not
> technically correct, but I've found it easier to use that to rationalize
> it to people with Windows backgrounds. Also, a soft link can be equated
> to a Windows shortcut -- you can delete the shortcut and the file is
> original file is not affected, but if you remove the original file, the
> shortcut is then broken...
>
May be, if you keep in mind, that the difference between a copy and a
hardlink is, that if you edit a copy of a file, you have two different
versions of the file on disk. But if you edit a hard link, also the
"original" is beeing altered. This is, since a hardlinked file exists
only once on the disk, but have two directory entries to get to the data.
You can consider a hard linked file as it beeing one file, but having two
names. Or, if the hard link is created in another directory, consider the
file as being in two places at the same time.
If you create a hard link - saying you use ln file.txt second.txt -
there is no difference between the directory entries "file.txt" and
"second.txt". Both point to the same piece of data. And nobody could see,
which was first.
What you said about soft links is correct. They can be compared to Windows
shortcuts. But the difference is, that soft links are something, the
operating system understands, and therefore every program works with it
and not only the windows explorer. And a soft link only contains the file
name of the target, but no icon info, or such things.
Hell
--
hell (Herbert Stocker)
:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ Hell is also \
http://hell.hsh.stusta.mhn.de \ my NickName \
goto:D->MUC->StuSta->HSH[1126] \ in RealLive. \�
:
--
To get out of this list, please send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e
Check out the SuSE-FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/ and the
archive at http://www.suse.com/Mailinglists/suse-linux-e/index.html
