3 ms·
My god, this thing always keeps biting me. It seems so obvious now with that cp-mnemonic. But it makes me wonder, why does everyone do it wrong in the first pla
by jvdh 16y ago
My god, this thing always keeps biting me. It seems so obvious now with that cp-mnemonic. But it makes me wonder, why does everyone do it wrong in the first place?
- nollidge 16y agoAt least for me, it's because I say in my head "link $FOO to $BAR", which must be typed "ln -s $BAR $FOO".
- rg3 16y agoMy theory is that we're used to see symlinks as part of the "ls -l" output, which lists the link name first, and then the target. Later, we want to create symlinks as we're used to see them (linkname -> target).
- xiongchiamiov 16y agoThe problem is that you're using the wrong definition of "link". I also say "link $foo to $bar", but that puts it in the right order: I have a folder. I want to link that folder to some other name, over yonder. " ln -s foo bar". See?
- Goladus 16y ago"I want to make a symbolic <link> to this <source>" "I want to copy this <source> to this <destination>" vs. "I want this <source> to be accessible via this <link>"
- neilk 16y agoBecause in the final result, the link points to the original. The directory listing will even say link -> original So naturally you want to say that in the command, "make a link that points to the original". I had a friend who gave up and made an alias that sorted out which of the arguments existed and did The Right Thing.