Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rochester!cornell!uw-beaver!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!amdcad!amd!intelca!oliveb!pyramid!prls!philabs!micomvax!musocs!mcgill-vision!mouse
From: mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: symbolic links are a botch
Message-ID: <824@mcgill-vision.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 26-Jun-87 05:09:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: mcgill-v.824
Posted: Fri Jun 26 05:09:07 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 4-Jul-87 22:56:00 EDT
References: <2629@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> <390@murphy.UUCP> <898@rtech.UUCP> <8738@tekecs.TEK.COM>
Organization: McGill University, Montreal
Lines: 29

In article <8738@tekecs.TEK.COM>, snoopy@doghouse.gwd.tek.com (Snoopy) writes:
> There is a difference between saying "You can't because it is
> impossible" and saying "You can't because I won't let you."  One of
> the big wins in Unix is that it doesn't put up artificial
> restrictions.

Well put.

> [...] what does your ls do when you say "ls -lFL" for a symlink
> pointing at non-existant file?

Ours ignores the -L option, that is, it lists the symlink rather than
the file it points to.

> Chris Torek writes:  (from the /dev/stdin discussion)
>> One of the wonderful things about Unix is its simple naming scheme.
>> [...] In V8 processes became files, through /proc.  This is the
>> right way to go.

> Hey, does this mean I could have a symlink to a process??
> (If I had v8)  Cosmic!

Hey, does this mean that fork() is just a special case of mknod()?
exit() just a special case of unlink()?
Yow!  Are we having FUN yet?

					der Mouse

				(mouse@mcgill-vision.uucp)