On Monday 09 July 2007 20:24, Mike McCarty wrote: > John R Pierce wrote: > > I prefer it the way it is. makes it easier to run multiple instances > > without having to copy the binaries. > > Not necessary at all. For such kinds of work, one normally uses > a soft link.
Hmm. If you use a link then which is the directory in which the executable is stored? Is it the same irrespective of which directory you're working in, or does it differ? Doesn't this muck up the whole idea of working with files in the directory where the executable is stored? Or, at the very least, lead to no end of confusion. (I remember struggling mightily with the directory structure on a Solaris system where some idiot had tried to make life easier for him/herself by linking a directory to one of its own leaves instead of modifying $PATH...) I agree with John (even though I know it isn't actually _necessary_ to copy the binary). Mike, why bother to use a soft link (or even a hard one) when you can simply place one copy of the binary somewhere on the path? Regards Brian Beesley _______________________________________________ Prime mailing list [email protected] http://hogranch.com/mailman/listinfo/prime
