<br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 11/5/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Marcin Kasperski</b> <<a href="mailto:Marcin.Kasperski@softax.com.pl">Marcin.Kasperski@softax.com.pl</a>> wrote:</span> <br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
[...]</blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>On the other hand: what about discussing about specific systems<br>instead of 'general case'? Namely - Windows. They do not have
<br>symlinks, but they have those .LNK files which to some degree<br>work as symlink, at least for GUI tools. Maybe it would make<br>sense to convert symlinks to .LNKs?</blockquote><div><br>Actually Windows (more specifically NTFS) does support symlinks. They are called "junction points" and are restricted to local directories only (
i.e. you can't link to another drive and you can't point to an individual file). See <a href="http://tinyurl.com/yg6re4">http://tinyurl.com/yg6re4</a> for a utility for playing with them.<br><br>Now I'm not saying that NTFS isn't rubbish (it is) and slow (it is), but it does at least have a half-assed implementation of symlinks.
<br><br>What was the thread about again?<br><br>Cheers,<br>Dan<br></div></div>