🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <18191@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes:
>* If CBM has to chose between including hardlinks and softlinks for 1.4, it
>  is clear that softlinks should be chosen: they are CLEARLY easier to 
>  implement, and seem to be enough for 99% of the cases.

Well, when you put it *that* way, yes, definitely, absolutely agree!

Perhaps we should have changed the subject to be "1.5 request" to
avoid implying otherwise.

>* In 8 years of work managing UNIX systems, I have used hardlinks once
>  or twice, probably at the beginning. In my daily use, softlinks suffice to
>  do all that I need (personal experience, of course).

This supports your point about "give me soft links soon rather than
delaying everything for the sake of hard links".

But naturally it doesn't answer whether hard links are ever useful;
in terms of that, it amounts to "I don't know of a use; do you?" which
is being addressed elsewhere.

Although I'm playing devil's advocate, I would agree that, of the two,
Unix symbolic links are far more *generally* useful than Unix hard links,
if I had to pick one of the two.

But the discussion is useful in pointing out exactly which semantics are
useful, and which are not. It appears that AmigaDOS softlinks may differ
significantly from Unix symbolic links, so this is a good thing to explore.

Recall my original concern: at the "Beyond 1.4" talk, someone in the
CBM section of the audience said that AmigaDOS hard links would allow links
to directories, and said Unix was bad for not allowing that. To me, that
meant we'd better start discussing the issues! I don't think that links are
so obvious that discussion of their intricacies is a waste of time.
	Doug
-- 
Doug Merritt		{pyramid,apple}!xdos!doug
Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow		Professional Wildeyed Visionary