|
|
|
|
|
|
by emmelaich
696 days ago
|
|
|
Its sort of annoying that he merely mentions the principle, and not precisely how it applies to hard links, but I think that's appropriate in the context of a single post / email. >On Plan 9, the rule tends to be: if feature(X) can't be implemented in
a way that works for everything, don't do it. TBH I don't think hard links would be missed in Linux either, symlinks are good enough. |
|
|
They really aren’t though. Anyone reading from a symlink needs access to the path it points to. If I have a network share with hard links pointing to common storage that’s outside the share’s root, clients are none the wiser and see them as normal files. With symlinks they would see links to paths they can’t see. It’s not really the same thing.