Linux

8763 readers

553 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)

Also, check out:

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Ategon@programming.dev

anzo@programming.dev

dwraf_of_ignorance@programming.dev

171

Linux's Modern NTFS Driver Will Now Correctly Handle Symlinks Created On Windows (www.phoronix.com)

submitted 1 week ago by cm0002@programming.dev to c/linux@programming.dev

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 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.

[–] naught101@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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... :-/

[–] naught101@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

That problem seems tiny relative to the convenience that symlinks offer...