all 22 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 23 points 1 year ago

By the time I learned how to create symlinks I'm Windows, I didn't need it.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Last time I used symlinks on Windows, the built-in photo viewer was crashing on them.

  • source
  • [+] -11 points 1 year ago (19 children)

    Windows can do symlinks now? Watch out, they're slowly catching up.

  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I used symlinks with windows in like... 2007?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    This is like seeing those php jokes in programming humor communities. Because they're clearly made by someone who is well over a decade out of date with their information.

    For reference symbolic links were properly introduced in Vista(2006), but junction points were available before that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    MS Windows and PHP... yeah I can see the resemblance. They're both crufty old tools that are obsolete for more than a decade but still widely used and talked about.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Heh. Yes they're similar, but on the technical side different in a very important way. It has to do with opening a file from inside another program. If you select a shortcut, the program with treat or as a separate file, so most of the time the action will fail. A link, though, you should end up with the program opening the target of the link. In other words, a shortcut is a file that points at a different file, where a symlink involves she filesystem trickery to accomplish almost the same thing.

    That's a horrible, just terrible explanation, though - but I'm pretty sure this is the gist of it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Or giving in. Symlinks are a lazy hacky mistake. The original Unix authors knew it and tried to fix it in Plan9, but I guess now we're stuck with that mistake forever. Even WASI supports symlinks.

    https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1267724.1267731

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    What would have been a better solution?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    The Plan 9 solution looks better to me. At the very least if you keep them then paths should be resolved lexically. I think most people are under the false impression that they are resolved lexically (i.e. foo/bar/../baz and foo/baz are the same).

    But IMO it's better just to not have them and use another solution where you might have used them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Sorry, I didn't follow any of that.. What is the plan 9 solution? I searched, but didn't see anything obvious

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Basically it uses bind mounts instead. See this page for details.

    I haven't actually used (since Plan 9 is dead) and I doubt it covers every use case for symlinks (e.g. this wouldn't let you commit them to a git repo), but I really think the benefits of symlinks not existing at all would far outweigh the effort of having to think of alternative solutions.

    Sadly we don't get to live in that alternative history now... :-/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment