Posted: 2003-02-05 05:15pm
Speaking of symlinks, how do I create on through a command shell? I wish to create some symlinks on the Linux server I use.
Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/
ln -s [target] [link]Lord MJ wrote:Speaking of symlinks, how do I create on through a command shell? I wish to create some symlinks on the Linux server I use.
Hm ... this article seemed like painfully obvious trolling to me. The author took, "Mac OS X uses the Mach microkernel," blended it with his "microkernels $UX0R$" shit, and wrote something. The majority of responses were right to flame his sorry ass for not researching exactly how OS X uses the Mach microkernel.Pu-239 wrote:Oh for Durandal and Lord MJ, about microkernels vs monolithic kernels:
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php ... ed&order=0
Don't you realize that a symlink actually exists at the filesystem level, while a "shortcut" is nothing more than a glorified batch file for the shell?His Divine Shadow wrote:*groans*Crayz9000 wrote:I'll second that. Shortcuts are crappy and very dependant upon file location. Move something from one partition to another and all the shortcuts will break...
That argument died with windows 95, or some time around that.
Bad, very bad example!. sh is statically compiled, which will enable you to actually use your machine in case something FUBARs (like libs disappearing). You do not want /bin/sh merely existing as a symlink to /bin/bashPu-239 wrote:ln -s [target] [link]Lord MJ wrote:Speaking of symlinks, how do I create on through a command shell? I wish to create some symlinks on the Linux server I use.
example: ln -s /bin/bash /bin/sh
UltraVNC is better, I think. RDP is superior to either of them.Pu-239 wrote:Oh another- I think easier- solution for remote X
http://www.tightvnc.com/
Indeed. Darwin is no more a microkernel than Windows NT 4+ is.Durandal wrote:Hm ... this article seemed like painfully obvious trolling to me. The author took, "Mac OS X uses the Mach microkernel," blended it with his "microkernels $UX0R$" shit, and wrote something. The majority of responses were right to flame his sorry ass for not researching exactly how OS X uses the Mach microkernel.Pu-239 wrote:Oh for Durandal and Lord MJ, about microkernels vs monolithic kernels:
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php ... ed&order=0
Yes, but what does a symlink have to do with that argument?Darth Wong wrote:Don't you realize that a symlink actually exists at the filesystem level, while a "shortcut" is nothing more than a glorified batch file for the shell?His Divine Shadow wrote:*groans*Crayz9000 wrote:I'll second that. Shortcuts are crappy and very dependant upon file location. Move something from one partition to another and all the shortcuts will break...
That argument died with windows 95, or some time around that.
This WAS 2000!His Divine Shadow wrote:And crayz, I moved a file 6+ subidrectories to test, I did not get any search dialouge, said feature is probably improved in 2k/XP
Eh. That's what boot disk is for. Besides if libs started disappearing, some other programs might not work either. Of course in a secure environment, you should'nt be able to boot from removable media.phongn wrote:Bad, very bad example!. sh is statically compiled, which will enable you to actually use your machine in case something FUBARs (like libs disappearing). You do not want /bin/sh merely existing as a symlink to /bin/bashPu-239 wrote:ln -s [target] [link]Lord MJ wrote:Speaking of symlinks, how do I create on through a command shell? I wish to create some symlinks on the Linux server I use.
example: ln -s /bin/bash /bin/sh
sh
sh is a symlink to the bash program. When invoked as sh, bash tries to mimic the startup behavior of historical versions of sh as closely as possible, while conforming to the POSIX standard as well.