5 ms·
Wow, this was super helpful! I’ve always have that underlying question of “why is it always ln -s” and ln -s just became a muscle memory without any reason. G
by _benj 2y ago
Wow, this was super helpful!
I’ve always have that underlying question of “why is it always ln -s” and ln -s just became a muscle memory without any reason.
Good post!
- jas39 2y agoI would recommend relative symlinks (ln -rs). Makes it easier to rename the homedir for example. On a copy-on-write filesystem, linking may not have much utility vs. copying.
- blueflow 2y agoOpen a terminal, type "man 1 ln". When the text shows up, you are usually in a less(1) paged window - type "/-s" to search for the option, "N" key to search forward, shift+"N" to search backwards. If you see a reference like $name($number), you can get to the manpage with "man $number $name". "man man" for the general man invocation, and "man less" on how to interact with the less pager.
- billpg 2y agoYou could, but this website's better.
- blueflow 2y agoWhy rely on guesswork when you have the primary source at hand?
- xboxnolifes 2y agoBecause the primary source's explanation is: -s, --symbolic make symbolic links instead of hard links While a fine reference, it doesn't exactly explain what that means if you don't already understand links.
- blueflow 2y agoman 7 symlink GNU's ln(1) unfortunately does not link to symlink(7) directly, but indirectly via symlink(2). You cal still find it with the "apropos" command.
- rirze 2y agoSame, after learning the hard (pun intended?) way about hark links, I just default to soft links.