🚀 go-pugleaf

:Hard links are "better" than soft links because you can't delete the
:linked-to file accidentally and suddenly have a bunch of non-existent
:files around to confuse the hell out of utility programs.
:-- 
:Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva      `-_-'

	What ?  That's really funny.  

	Soft links are better than hard links period.

	* Removing a softlink removes the softlink, NOT the file it is pointing
	  to

	* You can create soft links to non existant (or not yet existant) paths

	* You can have soft links across filesystems

	* You can have soft links to devices

	* It doesn't require any hacking on low level FS structures

	Hard links are dangerous because:

	* They are not easily supportable under AmigaDOS due to the filename
	  being in the file header (inode) instead of the directory entry
	  (what directory entry!).

	* backup programs would have to deal with circularities and, even when
	  found, since there is no distinction between a master or slave link
	  the user can get very very confused.  At least with soft links you
	  know where you stand.

	* hardlinks cannot cross device boundries and you cannot hard link 
	  something that does not exist yet.  You can only hard link real 
	  honest to goodness files.

	* Hardlinks look like normal files or directories... all the more
	  confusing.

							-Matt