Joerg Schilling wrote: > Casper.Dik at sun.com wrote: > >> Symlinks didn't exist until SVR4 got them from BSD so I'm not sure what >> the point is (symlinks take a lot more diskspace) > > As I did already mention, this is definitely wrong. > > SVR3 did support symlinks, it did not have lstat()....
SVR3.2 didn't support symlinks, but many distributions of it (such as Interactive UNIX and SCO) later added their own support for symlinks on top. It was pretty essential if you wanted to be able to be an NFS server, which they did. -- Andrew
