from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1])
	by spamassassin.taint.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03FAB16F1C
	for <zzzz@localhost>; Wed,  9 Oct 2002 10:52:59 +0100 (IST)
from xent.com ([64.161.22.236]) by dogma.slashnull.org
    (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g98MwbK05339 for <zzzz@spamassassin.taint.org>;
    Tue, 8 Oct 2002 23:58:41 +0100
From fork-admin@xent.com  Wed Oct  9 10:55:17 2002

from webnote.net (mail.webnote.net [193.120.211.219])
	by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6MG2bY17194
	for <jm-ilug@jmason.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 17:02:37 +0100
from lugh.tuatha.org (root@lugh.tuatha.org [194.125.145.45])
	by webnote.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA24947
	for <jm-ilug@jmason.org>; Sat, 20 Jul 2002 21:37:53 +0100
from lugh (root@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by lugh.tuatha.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA01250;
	Sat, 20 Jul 2002 21:33:46 +0100
from ie.suberic.net (owsla.ie.suberic.net [62.17.162.83])
	by lugh.tuatha.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA01211
	for <ilug@linux.ie>; Sat, 20 Jul 2002 21:33:38 +0100
lugh.tuatha.org: Host owsla.ie.suberic.net [62.17.162.83] claimed to be ie.suberic.net
from owsla.ie.suberic.net (owsla [127.0.0.1])
	by ie.suberic.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6KKXb927412
	for <ilug@linux.ie>; Sat, 20 Jul 2002 21:33:37 +0100

On Sat, Jul 20, 2002 at 08:24:47PM +0100, Aidan Kehoe wrote:
>  Ar an 20ú lá de mí 7, scríobh kevin lyda :
>  > actaully i think soft links were invented because you can't hard link
> But you could hard link directories, back when soft links were
that was before my time.  all unix systems i've used didn't allow hard
links to directories, or if they did they were restricted to root.
the reason why is because you could cause infinite loops in the kernel -
>  > apparently some systems limited soft links to the same device but
to make them consistent with hard links.
> A better way of doing it would be a) have global unique filesystem
> identifiers for every FS created (such that the chance of two of them
> clashing is miniscule; 64 bits creatively used would do it, I'd say),
> and b) implement the target info for the soft link as a {FSID, inode}
> pair; the OS can work out if the thing linked to is now on a different
> mount point, or has been moved. (HFS fans, is that what's done? Or are
let's call these super-soft-links.  ln -ss
the fs would need to maintain a table of links going the other direction.
so when the move command unlinks foo in the first example, it could
check the table and mark that bar is now disconnected.  the same would
be true for the second example - and even more important since bar points
and this all fails to handle nfs mounted file systems or filesystems
that have dynamic inodes (the fat fs's and reiser lacks inodes i think).