Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!pollux.usc.edu!papa
From: papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Soft links vs hard links (was Re: yet another 1.4 request)
Message-ID: <18191@usc.edu>
Date: 1 Jul 89 02:51:39 GMT
References: <8906302004.AA16719@postgres.Berkeley.EDU> <SHADOW.89Jun30201139@pawl.rpi.edu>
Sender: news@usc.edu
Reply-To: papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa)
Organization: Felsina Software, Los Angeles, wKeywords:
Lines: 26

After the recent flurry of messages about "hardlinks vs. softlinks" let me 
give my 5 cents:

* If CBM has to chose between including hardlinks and softlinks for 1.4, it
  is clear that softlinks should be chosen: they are CLEARLY easier to 
  implement, and seem to be enough for 99% of the cases.

* In 8 years of work managing UNIX systems, I have used hardlinks once
  or twice, probably at the beginning. In my daily use, softlinks suffice to
  do all that I need (personal experience, of course).

* I would really be *MAD* if, because of the introduction of 'hardlinks' and
  the sure MAJOR changes to AmigaDOS, release of 1.4 is further delayed by the
  2-3 months of extra development/testing which has been proposed as a possible
  ballpack figure for it.

Note that my opinions are heavilly BIASED by the fact that as a commercial
developer I'd like to see 1.4 out ASAP, no matter how well anybody can convince
me of the benefits of hard links.  I'll entertain any personal e-mail, so as 
to lower the bandwidth.

-- Marco Papa 'Doc'
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
uucp:...!pollux!papa       BIX:papa       ARPAnet:pollux!papa@oberon.usc.edu
"There's Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Diga and Caligari!" -- Rick Unland
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=