----- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -----
Von: David Brown
Gesendet am: 24 Feb 2011 16:48:19
>> That's not entirely true. Sure, the implementation is different (it's
>> NTFS and not EXTx), but the support is there and it does not confuse
>> anyone. Juse the explorer does not offer a frontend for this. NFTS
>> also supports real linked folders (not just these pseudo-links)
>> called junctions, but the only point in WIndows where it is used (and
>> a frontend is provided) is for linking partitions (or USB devices
>> etc.) into an existing NTFS folder.
>I would be very sceptical about using a feature that is not understood
>by the basic OS tools, and that very few third-party developers
>understand or use. I can't think off-hand of /how/ things could go
>wrong, but I would have to have a good reason before using hard links on
>windows.
Well, the basic OS tools support it. Just not the UI :)
It's a typical 'we know/decide when you will need this and when not'
decision from Microsoft.
> Hard linked folder are just asking for trouble - that's why they are
> disallowed in *nix (except for the special cases of . and ..). They
> break the tree structure of the file system, and pave the way to
> unending loops in the directory structure.
Yes, endless loops can be a problem. I think the tool I mentioned
does check for this and does not allow linking a loop normally.
It does break a 'single top-down' file system structure, but not the
structure itself.
There are several advantages for junctions (as they are called for folders):
Junctions appear as normal folders in the file manager tree
(with a 'link' icon overlay).
Taking a Junction will not switch the path. You can go down and up
through a junction point and won't notice it. If you follow a soft link,
you will end up somewhere else when you go up again.
(the '.' and '..' are NOT hard-linked here)
Also, the destination folder willl inherit rights from the junction point as
its parent. This allows exposing a folder to the network and then
create junctions to many different folders across all drives which will
be accessible as if they were natively in this notwork folder.
And there's no need to alter the access rights in the real folders.
I use junctions for three jobs: first, the above network job,
then I group my various USB sticks and such in a dedicated
'removable media' folder where they appear each in its own
jucniton folder. This part is supported by the windows drive manager.
The third is to create shortcuts to some deep-buried but often required
folders (partially network drives) so I can access them easily from the
standard file dialog box. It's way more convenient than the soft links,
as these are actually normal files, only specially treated by the file
manager
> Hard links are not even very common on *nix systems (excluding . and ..,
> of course) - soft-links are often a better choice. Hard-links are good
> for programs with multiple names (busybox being an excellent example),
> and for snapshot-style backups. But mostly a soft-link is a better choice.
There's of course a difference between junctions and hardlinks (where a file
content has two independent file entries).
Junctions can cross partitions and even media, while hard links of course
can only be on the same drive (as they point to a physical content)
I almost only use hardlinks when I have a 'document' that I want to
use as well as to burn. Then I place a hardlink in the burn folder and
delete this folder when I'm done (maybe weeks later, when I have collected
all that belongs together).
However, after installing NTFS-Link, I noticed that Win7 itself has generated
lots and lots of hard links (almost the whole initially installed windows and
system32 folder as well as parts in the program folder suddenly wear a
hardlink overlay icon).
> However, I'd feel safer using hard links than I would using files which
> differ only in the case of the letters.
definitely.
We had this issue when using TortoiseSVN. Out sources are
camelCased files. Then we changed the case of the first letter.
For WIndows, it was the same file, Tortoise added it as a new file and
had two of them in the repository. Of course any checkout or update
utterly failed.
> I never like installations that modify my PATH - it is selfish
> behaviour. If I want to be able to run programs directly from then
> command line without specifying the program's path, then /I/ will set
> PATH appropriately.
Me too. But many do and you're not asked at all.
And non-admins often do not even know about the PATH.
JMGross
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software Download: Index, Search & Analyze Logs and other IT data in
Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data
generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual
or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business
insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Mspgcc-users mailing list
Mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users
