> > I believe ln makes hard links by default. > > > Would either style work in this setup? > > I don't see why not, but I could be wrong. > Technically, symlinks can cross filesystem boundaries, whereas > hard links cannot. Beyond that, for this particular situation > I think they're pretty much equivalent. Yup, you'll only notice the difference when you delete one of the files; with symlinks, if you happen to delete the original file (e.g. "quiet") then all its symlinks are left pointing at nothing :-( So in this example, as someone might easily decide to delete the file quiet because it doesn't wrap anything, hard links might be a safer choice; but the stakes aren't high. A symlink can link to a directory, whereas hard links can't. Overall, symlinks are more common. Hard links date from the very beginning of unix, whereas symlinks were introduced a few years later; that's the only reason why ln makes hard links by default. Peter http://www.pjb.com.au pj at pjb.com.au (03) 6278 9410 "Was der Meister nicht kann, verm?cht es der Knabe, h?tt er ihm immer gehorcht?" Siegfried to Mime, from Act 1 Scene 2
