One obvious thing hard links allow is a way to have the same file with
different permissions. With a symbolic link you need both access
permissions for the symbolic link and actual file. i.e.
ln -s /tmp/foo.exe /home/bcr/foo.exe
chmod ugo-x /tmp/foo.exe
chmod ugo+x /home/bcr/foo.exe
With a hardlink, you only need access permissions for the hardlink...
Another advantage of a hardlink is the underlying file can not disappear.
i.e.
ln /tmp/foo.txt /home/bcr/foo.txt
rm -f /tmp/foo.txt
In this case /home/bcr/foo.txt still exists.
The third significant advantage of a hardlink is it is recognized by the
underlying operating system without ambiguity.
However, I do not really see the advantage of "fake hardlinks", as you would
not have any of these features. It would just be more like an invisible
symbolic link.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Buchbinder, Barry (NIH/NIAID)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'A. Alper Atici'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 2:27 PM
Subject: RE: Emulating hard links on FAT et al.
> If you do this, remember that it shouldn't be limited to FAT file systems.
> Even though one's version of Windows may be capable of making hard links,
> one may not have the permission level (Administrator) to do so.
>
> But I'm not sure that I see the point of emulating hard links. It seems
to
> me that you are just making a second type of symbolic link. Is there
> anything that the emulated hard link could do that the ordinary symbolic
> link cannot? (Sorry if this is a question with an obvious answer. I
> haven't had more than fleeting access to a system that would allow me to
> make hard links since 1988).
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: A. Alper Atici
> Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 5:52 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RFI: Emulating hard links on FAT et al.
>
> Hello,
>
> I've been pondering over the prospects of emulating hard links for
> some time. List archives don't show much about it, and I have not come
> across any similar open implementation on the net.
>
> My rudimentary idea of emulating hard links is based on employing a
> new type of windows shortcut which will be regarded as a hardlinking
> file, rather than a symlink, by Cygwin. For this, I hope to figure out
> a possible combination in the magic bitvector byte(word?) in shortcut
> header. Any comments? How about 0x1c?
>
> --
> A. Alper Atici OpenPGP KeyID: 0xB824F550
>
> --
> Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
> Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
> Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
> FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
>
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
