+----- On Tue, 13 Apr 1999 03:04:20 +0200, "Herbert Stocker HSH[1126]" writes:
|
| On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, Michael Merritt wrote:
|
| >
| > Could a hard link also be referred to as a copy? I know it is not
| > technically correct, but I've found it easier to use that to rationalize
| > it to people with Windows backgrounds. Also, a soft link can be equated
| > to a Windows shortcut -- you can delete the shortcut and the file is
| > original file is not affected, but if you remove the original file, the
| > shortcut is then broken...
| >
|
|
| May be, if you keep in mind, that the difference between a copy and a
| hardlink is, that if you edit a copy of a file, you have two different
| versions of the file on disk. But if you edit a hard link, also the
| "original" is beeing altered. This is, since a hardlinked file exists
| only once on the disk, but have two directory entries to get to the data.
Whether you have 1 or 2 files after editing depends on you editor. VI
for example truncates the file and then rewrites the data hence you
have 1 file afterwards, others create a new file and then you have 2.
This can be very important when you edit files under /sbin/init.d and
is a good reason to use symlinks.
/Michael
--
To get out of this list, please send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e
Check out the SuSE-FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/ and the
archive at http://www.suse.com/Mailinglists/suse-linux-e/index.html
