Clarifying Symbolic Links

scottalanmiller

@wirestyle22 said in Clarifying Symbolic Links:

@scottalanmiller said in Clarifying Symbolic Links:

@wirestyle22 said in Clarifying Symbolic Links:

I am told to think of symbolic links as shortcuts but I have never tried to refer to a shortcut instead of a file ...

Never? Loads of things on Windows do this automatically. It's everywhere.

No, I have always referenced the file directly unless this is occurring without my knowledge (possible).

So, for example, if you want a handy access to a program you would move the program itself to your desktop or into the menu rather than having a symlink there to just point to it?

scottalanmiller

Things in Windows that are normally shortcuts are the Windows menu, the quick launch bar and the desktop (many things on the desktop.) Loads of applications, including video games, make shortcuts on your desktop automatically. This is nearly as common as not.

wirestyle22

@scottalanmiller said in Clarifying Symbolic Links:

Things in Windows that are normally shortcuts are the Windows menu, the quick launch bar and the desktop (many things on the desktop.) Loads of applications, including video games, make shortcuts on your desktop automatically. This is nearly as common as not.

If I am configuring something inside of windows afaik I can't refer to the shortcut of the file, just the file. That is what symbolic links enable you do to do though, correct?

scottalanmiller

A common usage of symlinks is for versioning. Example...

Folder "Application" contains several versions of an application:

app-1.02
app-1.03
app-1.04

You will often do this so that you are not deleting versions when upgrading. A symlink called current might point to the version that you are currently running. One called last will often point to the one you were running before current.

scottalanmiller

@wirestyle22 said in Clarifying Symbolic Links:

If I am configuring something inside of windows afaik I can't refer to the shortcut of the file, just the file. That is what symbolic links enable you do to do though, correct?

What do you think a shortcut does in Windows?

scottalanmiller

For all intents and purposes, a Windows shortcut = UNIX symbolic link. They are both text files containing the name of the file that they point to. They both behave essentially identically.

wirestyle22

@scottalanmiller said in Clarifying Symbolic Links:

@wirestyle22 said in Clarifying Symbolic Links:

If I am configuring something inside of windows afaik I can't refer to the shortcut of the file, just the file. That is what symbolic links enable you do to do though, correct?

What do you think a shortcut does in Windows?

In windows I can name a shortcut ian that is referring to file1 and then when configuring a piece of software that needs to refer to it I can use the shortcut instead of the file? That is something I've never done in windows. I hope I'm being clear, I'm trying to be.

scottalanmiller

@wirestyle22 said in Clarifying Symbolic Links:

@scottalanmiller said in Clarifying Symbolic Links:

@wirestyle22 said in Clarifying Symbolic Links:

If I am configuring something inside of windows afaik I can't refer to the shortcut of the file, just the file. That is what symbolic links enable you do to do though, correct?

What do you think a shortcut does in Windows?

In windows I can name a shortcut ian that is referring to file1 and then when configuring a piece of software that needs to refer to it I can use the shortcut instead of the file?

Of course, what did you think a shortcut did? That's the only thing that it does.

wirestyle22

@scottalanmiller said in Clarifying Symbolic Links:

@wirestyle22 said in Clarifying Symbolic Links:

@scottalanmiller said in Clarifying Symbolic Links:

@wirestyle22 said in Clarifying Symbolic Links:

If I am configuring something inside of windows afaik I can't refer to the shortcut of the file, just the file. That is what symbolic links enable you do to do though, correct?

What do you think a shortcut does in Windows?

In windows I can name a shortcut ian that is referring to file1 and then when configuring a piece of software that needs to refer to it I can use the shortcut instead of the file?

Of course, what did you think a shortcut did? That's the only thing that it does.

I just never considered doing that because why would you? I don't understand the use case

scottalanmiller

@wirestyle22 said in Clarifying Symbolic Links:

@scottalanmiller said in Clarifying Symbolic Links:

@wirestyle22 said in Clarifying Symbolic Links:

@scottalanmiller said in Clarifying Symbolic Links:

@wirestyle22 said in Clarifying Symbolic Links:

If I am configuring something inside of windows afaik I can't refer to the shortcut of the file, just the file. That is what symbolic links enable you do to do though, correct?

What do you think a shortcut does in Windows?

In windows I can name a shortcut ian that is referring to file1 and then when configuring a piece of software that needs to refer to it I can use the shortcut instead of the file?

Of course, what did you think a shortcut did? That's the only thing that it does.

I just never considered doing that because why would you? I don't understand the use case

Okay so... let's say you have an application that runs on your server. You have twenty users on the server. Five of those users need to use that application and want it on their desktops so that they can find it. Do you make five copies of that application, one for each user, and store them on their individual desktops?

scottalanmiller

Shortcuts and symlinks should not feel like an "odd niche use case". They are so normal that you probably clicked on a few during the course of this conversation and didn't realize it. Just like apropos is a symbolic link itself. Symlinks are so common and so useful, that you actually would struggle to function without them. Just their creation is often automated, so you don't actually think about it all of the time.

wirestyle22

@scottalanmiller said in Clarifying Symbolic Links:

@wirestyle22 said in Clarifying Symbolic Links:

@scottalanmiller said in Clarifying Symbolic Links:

@wirestyle22 said in Clarifying Symbolic Links:

@scottalanmiller said in Clarifying Symbolic Links:

@wirestyle22 said in Clarifying Symbolic Links:

If I am configuring something inside of windows afaik I can't refer to the shortcut of the file, just the file. That is what symbolic links enable you do to do though, correct?

What do you think a shortcut does in Windows?

In windows I can name a shortcut ian that is referring to file1 and then when configuring a piece of software that needs to refer to it I can use the shortcut instead of the file?

Of course, what did you think a shortcut did? That's the only thing that it does.

I just never considered doing that because why would you? I don't understand the use case

Okay so... let's say you have an application that runs on your server. You have twenty users on the server. Five of those users need to use that application and want it on their desktops so that they can find it. Do you make five copies of that application, one for each user, and store them on their individual desktops?

I understand what you're saying, I'm speaking totally in regards to the configuration of a piece of software, not accessing a program.

scottalanmiller

@wirestyle22 said in Clarifying Symbolic Links:

I understand what you're saying, I'm speaking totally in regards to the configuration of a piece of software, not accessing a program.

Why pick that one use case?

scottalanmiller

So let's use the config use case. Let's say that there are ten stock configuration files for an application. When run, you have to supply the application with a configuration in order for it to run. You have one hundred users. You might make a symbolic link named ian that points to userdefault6.conf as that's the configuration file you want. The files for betty and monica point to that one, too. But joe, bernard, rebecca and johnstamos all point to userdefault4.conf.

wirestyle22

@scottalanmiller said in Clarifying Symbolic Links:

@wirestyle22 said in Clarifying Symbolic Links:

I understand what you're saying, I'm speaking totally in regards to the configuration of a piece of software, not accessing a program.

Why pick that one use case?

I'm trying to understand the use case: Windows vs. Linux. It makes more sense to me to use a shortcut in a GUI, but what is the use case for the CLI?

wirestyle22

@scottalanmiller said in Clarifying Symbolic Links:

So let's use the config use case. Let's say that there are ten stock configuration files for an application. When run, you have to supply the application with a configuration in order for it to run. You have one hundred users. You might make a symbolic link named ian that points to userdefault6.conf as that's the configuration file you want. The files for betty and monica point to that one, too. But joe, bernard, rebecca and johnstamos all point to userdefault4.conf.

Alright, that makes perfect sense. Thank you.

scottalanmiller

@wirestyle22 said in Clarifying Symbolic Links:

@scottalanmiller said in Clarifying Symbolic Links:

@wirestyle22 said in Clarifying Symbolic Links:

I understand what you're saying, I'm speaking totally in regards to the configuration of a piece of software, not accessing a program.

Why pick that one use case?

I'm trying to understand the use case: Windows vs. Linux. It makes more sense to me to use a shortcut in a GUI, but what is the use case for the CLI?

Exactly the same.

mlnews

Perfect timing, this came up in the news thread this morning...

The Beauty of Links

stacksofplates

Another thought, you will save yourself headaches if you use a full path for the original file. If you just link ian to file1 and later move Ian, it will break. But if you reference the full path for file1, it will work no matter where you move ian.

stacksofplates

@wirestyle22 said in Clarifying Symbolic Links:

@scottalanmiller said in Clarifying Symbolic Links:

@wirestyle22 said in Clarifying Symbolic Links:

I understand what you're saying, I'm speaking totally in regards to the configuration of a piece of software, not accessing a program.

Why pick that one use case?

I'm trying to understand the use case: Windows vs. Linux. It makes more sense to me to use a shortcut in a GUI, but what is the use case for the CLI?

Here is a real world example. The corporate IT guys are using something called Useful. It displays images through a zero client attached to a TV. We mounted a share to the server and made a soft link to the directory in the share. Useful looks at the soft link for images and sees whatever is in the share.