I guess you and I are back to square one Patrick. The "no need to reply" is back up. Tom On Monday 30 August 2004 09:11 pm, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* Tom Nielsen [08-30-04 22:54]:

...

I've googled, but decided not to spend all night searching.

File1 sym'd to file2 file2 sym'd to file3 file3

I want to remove the sym link from file2....how?

this is a tough one. I agree, a search would have taken a *long* time. At least as long as to type the search term into the form block on google.com/linux.

man rm

hint treate the sym-link just the same as a file -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/photos

-- ---------------------------- Tom Nielsen Neuro Logic Systems, Inc. 805.389.5435 x18 www.neuro-logic.com ----------------------------

Tirsdag den 31. august 2004 17:37 skrev Patrick Shanahan:

* Tom Nielsen [08-31-04 00:04]:

...

I guess you and I are back to square one Patrick. The "no need to reply" is back up.

If reading the man page for the proper command is getting your back up, I cannot say I am sorry. Also about google. You would rather take my time and fill the list, than spend a few minutes of your own time and really learn a very basic operation. Deleting files and making links is really beginner stuff.

But then, you will probably delete this rather than expend the effort to read. :^)

Of course there's the option to get books on the basics of things and then use the net from there on. Has proven to be working well for me with various areas/applications related to computers/Linux Johan

* Randall R Schulz [08-31-04 00:44]:

Did you follow your own advice in order to confirm it's usefulness?

sure did.

Actually, this one is not so straightforward to find in the manual. The "rm" man page doesn't mention any of the special details pertinent to the treatment of symbolic links. The relevant information is on the "unlink (3p) man page, where the following statement appears:

"If path names a symbolic link, unlink() shall remove the symbolic link named by path and shall not affect any file or directory named by the contents of the symbolic link."

If you read my entire post, you would know that I told him to treat the "sym" link as a file...

If one doesn't know that the system call that forms the basis of the "rm" command is "unlink" (and why would one?), then the hunt for the information could be a lengthy one.

And unnecessary, in this case. The question was about soft or sym links, not hard links. You make me think that you believe that one need not make any effort to gain his own solutions. While I did not present him with the specific command line command necessary to complete his task, he did not provide the file/link name necessary and I did give him sufficient refference and direction to complete his task. He will learn to do for himself if you lead him. He will learn to rely on you if you provide the answers. And I am using 'you' in general, not specifically Randal R Schultz. I will help anyone who asks for help and shows that he is making an effort, ie: wants *assistance*. I will *work* (for $$$s) for someone who wants *me* to do the work. -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/photos

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 10:37:49 -0700 Tom Nielsen wrote:

Again, I'm too busy to go thru countless threads looking for an answer. That's why the group is here....I think.

Says it all, really, you're too busy to bother, what with your "Like most folks on this list, I work, I have a home life and family I have to tend to." and all, in finding out for yourself. So, THAT'S what the list's for, to save YOU having to bother. After all those folks unlike you but are "folks which are retired", and so, presumably, have the time "to figure stuff out" should help you. And you respond with "Ahh, I was right. You are playing the parent role. That's what I thought." Have you actually thought about your argument logically? Terence

Tirsdag den 31. august 2004 23:04 skrev Tom Nielsen:

On Tuesday 31 August 2004 01:58 pm, Terence McCarthy wrote:

...

Have you actually thought about your argument logically?

Terence

Uh, ya....I have.

Maybe this is my problem....this is not a full time job for me. I'm a sales guy. I like Linux, I run it at home and the office. I don't want to spend 60 minutes trying to figure out how to remove a link and then screw it up. If I ask and no one replies because my question is too silly or elementary, then so be it....I go find a group that is not so above me.

Again, I always try to figure something out. If I have to ask, then I can't figure it out. Why should I spend days trying to do something when I can ask? If someone has a question on this list, like the guy with the resolution problem, I don't ask "how long have you looked for this?" or "How many times did you do a google search on the topic?" I just gave him what he needed to know. Why is it such a big deal to just answer someone's question in a direct and straight forward way????

Tom --

Easily answered .......... It's the amount of question you have compared to your own efforts digging through the "dirt" (~ manuals and so on). Admitted some people spend more time with linux than both you and I and they had a hard time back then when information wasn't as widely spread/published as today. So if you're relieing on others time more than putting in some time yourself you're gonna get a lot of steam anywhere (I almost guess you experienced that in some odd way before ..... and that others than me took up that issue with you). You might consider to ask for pointers for solutions which would also help you get skilled in aquirering new knowledge in this field. That way you learn a very valuable skill that many salespeople lack - learning about the FACTS. I'm certain that your customers would like your qualified input when you gain more knowledge about Linux. This posting is not intended to be rude but HOPEFULLY to give you an understanding of what I (maybe others on this list) think about how you value our time !! Johan

Terence, On Tuesday 31 August 2004 13:58, Terence McCarthy wrote:

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 10:37:49 -0700

Tom Nielsen wrote:

...

Again, I'm too busy to go thru countless threads looking for an answer. That's why the group is here....I think.

Says it all, really, you're too busy to bother, what with your "Like most folks on this list, I work, I have a home life and family I have to tend to." and all, in finding out for yourself.

Please read Tom's original post. He did Google and was not converging on an answer, so he turned to this list. As I've pointed out, this particular issue, however common and seemingly straightforward it is, is in fact rather obscure, from the perspective of the pertinent documentation. Thus, I think it was justified for Tom to appeal to the members of this list and that it likewise deserved a straightforward answer from someone in possession of the knowledge he sought. Likewise, I think the observation that an experiment could have forestalled this whole brouhaha is equally valid.

...

Terence

Randall Schulz

* Randall R Schulz [08-31-04 12:50]:

Personally, my policy is never to post only to chastise. If I have a criticism _and_ and answer, I'll give both. If I have a criticism only,

and my reply did not contain the information necessary to accomplish the task of removing a link?? Or are you just casting generalities?

I (try to) hold my tongue (but do not always succeed).

Noted. Give the same consideration. -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/photos

Tirsdag den 31. august 2004 06:11 skrev Patrick Shanahan:

* Tom Nielsen [08-30-04 22:54]:

...

I've googled, but decided not to spend all night searching.

File1 sym'd to file2 file2 sym'd to file3 file3

I want to remove the sym link from file2....how?

this is a tough one. I agree, a search would have taken a *long* time. At least as long as to type the search term into the form block on google.com/linux.

man rm

hint treate the sym-link just the same as a file

Yes and if done with mc (midnight commander ~ Norton commander Clone) one might have noticed that if you delete something it's the same procedure ;-)

-- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/photos

Start a fresh thread my friend. Click on suse-linux-e@suse.com Somewhere and start from there Tirsdag den 31. august 2004 11:26 skrev Nico:

Hi,

I'm running Suse 9.1 and the rest of the office is still running MS-Windows. We are planning a gradual move from MS to Linux.

Up to now, we enountered only one problem: FONTS

I can't send an OpenOffice document to my colleagues and have them open it without "changes".

Is there a way to export the Linux fonts to MS-Windows?

Thanks

Nico

On Tuesday 31 August 2004 09:26, Nico wrote:

I can't send an OpenOffice document to my colleagues and have them open it without "changes".

Is there a way to export the Linux fonts to MS-Windows?

~ this is probably easy : copy your M$ true-type fonts over to a directory such as : /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/truetype/ ......................... I owe thanks to some kind list-member whose name I have sadly lostm who told me : ____________ Try running SuSEconfig and see if that fixes it, otherwise this worked in an older version of SuSE. To reinitialise all your truetypes please follow these steps. 1) Change to where the fonts are. cd /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/truetype 2) Determine if there are any files been created for the scaling of the ttf's. ls -l fonts.s* 3) Remove all these files. rm fonts.s* 4) Create a new font scale file. ttmkfdir | sed s/^[0-9]*// > fonts.scale.myfonts 5) Now run SuSEconfig.fonts /sbin/conf.d/SuSEconfig.fonts 6) Run xset to reread the font paths xset fp rehash You should be able to see the fonts with xfontsel ................................ Finally, you only need to tell OpenOffice to use the font of your choice as default font. -- best wishes ____________ sent on Linux ____________

Patrick Shanahan wrote:

this is a tough one. I agree, a search would have taken a *long* time. At least as long as to type the search term into the form block Yes, it is a tough one. I've been down this road before. I had the same question but that "FM" that you and some others tell us to read doesn't make the answer clear. While to you and some it might be obvious that rm works only on the link, it wasn't so obvious in that "FM", not even in "Running Linux" from O'Reily.

Thanks to Randall and Jim for your helpful answers Damon Register

* Damon Register [08-31-04 05:33]:

Yes, it is a tough one. I've been down this road before. I had the same question but that "FM" that you and some others tell us to read doesn't make the answer clear. While to you and some it might be obvious that rm works only on the link, it wasn't so obvious in that "FM", not even in "Running Linux" from O'Reily.

Rather than repeat myself, see my reply to Randall critism earlier in this thread. :^) -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/photos

On Monday 30 August 2004 09:13 pm, Randall R Schulz wrote:

Tom,

On Monday 30 August 2004 20:53, Tom Nielsen wrote:

...

I've googled, but decided not to spend all night searching.

File1 sym'd to file2 file2 sym'd to file3 file3

I want to remove the sym link from file2....how?

Just like any other file--the "rm" command. When you apply rm to a symbolic link, it does not deference the symlink, but rather operates on the link itself. The target remains unaffected.

...

-- Tom Nielsen

Randall Schulz I got it! Thanks!

Patrick, Now see....Randall is a star poster. Gives the information people requests. I'm not sure if you're playing parent with posters: "Mom, how do you spell elephant?" "Go look it up Johnny....it's a good way to learn." If you are playing parent, go to one of your other lists and do it. Folks on here don't have time to play 20 questions. We're not all retired from GM, just waiting around to die with nothing better to do. If you don't like this attitude, my phone number is below. You're more than welcome to call me and discuss it like a man. I'm in California and will be in around 9:00. -- ---------------------------- Tom Nielsen Neuro Logic Systems, Inc. 805.389.5435 x18 www.neuro-logic.com ----------------------------

Look everyone, this is a waste of time and effort - if I was on dial-up, I'd be really pi**ed off at having to download all this crap. It just so happens that on this occasion it wasn't a simple answer that could be solved by reading the man page (quite often the case) but the fact remains that there will always be people who will post a question without putting in any effort at all, no matter how often you tell them read the docs or search on the internet. As I've said before, a lot of people do search, but don't understand the results. So why don't we just agree that if someone wants to answer a question they can go ahead and do it: if they don't they can keep quiet? If the OP then complains about not getting an answer, we can tell them why. There have been a few questions recently that have sparked off lengthy debates quite unrelated to the original query, but all related to one another, thus demonstrating what a futile exercise arguing is. I'm as guilty as the next person but isn't it time we just got on with the business of the list? (whatever that is - there's another debate). David

OP here.... I couldn't figure out which way was right, so I dumped the hard drive in the trash and started over......kidding....I managed to do it by ln the file to itself. Thanks to all for the input! I would like to make a very important point here. The last 2 questions I asked in which I received a response from a particular individual, like "man this" or "google that" turned out to be not quite that simple after all. My guess is that he didn't know what he was talking about so offered up a simple reply to look good. The point here is, never bite off more than you can chew. No, wait, wrong point.....a simple question might not have a simple answer, so don't jump on folks for asking a question. Most people here don't.....and that's why I love you guys! (Sorry, got a little mushy). Thanks again for the help. -- Tom Nielsen Neuro Logic Systems, Inc. 1.805.389.5435 x18 www.neuro-logic.com

On Tuesday 31 Aug 2004 16:39 pm, Tom Nielsen wrote:

<SNIP>

...

a simple question might not have a simple answer, so don't jump on folks for asking a question.

Perhaps the problem is that your question was not the right one to get the answer you wanted? I'll give you that.

Q: How do you remove a symlink? A: With rm, just like any other file... but if I rm file2, am I not going to delete the actual file and not the sym

On Tuesday 31 August 2004 9:03 am, Dylan wrote: link?

but

Q: I have sym1 => sym2 => file3 and want sym1 => file3, what's the best way? ....

I take it that is what you meant... The real answer, of course, is to not make links to links...

The real answer is for me to reformat my drive and start over ;-) Actually I wanted to remove the link from file2 to file3. So file1 > File2 and File3 stands alone. -- Tom Nielsen Neuro Logic Systems, Inc. 1.805.389.5435 x18 www.neuro-logic.com

On Tuesday 31 August 2004 03:10 pm, Danny Sauer wrote:

Eh, whatever.  I just felt like I oughtta contribute to the thread, too. I hate being left out. :)

--Danny LOL - That's the attitude!

Ya, I ln -s file2 to file2. That took care of it...I think. -- ---------------------------- Tom Nielsen Neuro Logic Systems, Inc. 805.389.5435 x18 www.neuro-logic.com ----------------------------

Danny, On Wednesday 01 September 2004 07:10, Danny Sauer wrote:

Tom wrote regarding 'Re: [SLE] How do I remove a sym link?' on Tue, Aug 31 at 17:22: ...

I'd go on, but I think that perhaps a description of what a symlink actually *is* might be in order. Again, I'm making assumptions, but it seems like you may not have a very good handle on what a symlink is for, what it does, etc. :)

I answered _that_ question just a week ago in news:alt.os.linux.suse! Look for the post from me with the subject "Re: KDE 3.3 fixing screensavers" on 2004-08-24 at 15:43.

--Danny, hoping to be corrected if wrong

Randall Schulz

Patrick, On Wednesday 01 September 2004 08:46, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* Randall R Schulz [09-01-04 09:34]:

...

On Wednesday 01 September 2004 07:10, Danny Sauer wrote:

...

I'd go on, but I think that perhaps a description of what a symlink actually *is* might be in order. Again, I'm making assumptions, but it seems like you may not have a very good handle on what a symlink is for, what it does, etc. :)

I answered _that_ question just a week ago in news:alt.os.linux.suse! Look for the post from me with the subject "Re: KDE 3.3 fixing screensavers" on 2004-08-24 at 15:43.

Thus, you are implying that the OP should have researched the different aspects of his problem/question (finding your explanation) and perhaps arrived at his own solution, or you would have posted that reference or information here, also.

I'm not implying anything. You're inferring it, and not validly, either. Why, oh why can't you refrain from posting if you're not going to make a positive contribution? At least I gave the information needed to find a contribution I already made, albeit in a different forum. If you've got a problem with me personally, send mail to me, please. Here is (an excerpt from) the news:alt.os.linux.suse posting I referred to -==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==-

...

Anyway, symbolic links are aliases that act as pointers from one name to another (in contrast to hard links, which are co-equal aliases that do not involve a redirection to another name and have other limitations).

Thanks, but - huh?

What would a pointer do? Why would I need one?  Is this kind of like an extension to the path variable, only on a per-file/directory basis?

... Sometimes it's desirable to have more than one name refer to the same file. Modern Unixes (and all work-alikes such as Linux) have two mechanisms for accomplishing this, the "hard link" and the "soft" or "symbolic link." Hard links are just multiple directory entries that refer to the same file. A directory entry may only refer to a file that's on the same file system volume or partition as the directory entry. Symbolic links are actually just small files whose contents are another file name to use in place of or in addition to the symbolic link's name itself. Symbolic links are very handy so that programs or users can have stable names for things that have to change (due to version updates, e.g.) or move around (due to file system reorganization or space considerations, e.g.). So for example, on my SuSE 9.1 Pro system with Java installed these directory entries appear in /usr/lib: % ll -d /usr/lib/*[Jj]ava* lrwxrwxrwx  1 root root 12 2004-06-17 23:55 /usr/lib/java -> SunJava2-1.4/ lrwxrwxrwx  1 root root 12 2004-06-17 23:55 /usr/lib/java2 -> SunJava2-1.4/ lrwxrwxrwx  1 root root 12 2004-06-17 23:55 /usr/lib/SunJava2 -> SunJava2-1.4/ lrwxrwxrwx  1 root root 14 2004-06-17 22:51 /usr/lib/SunJava2-1.4 -> SunJava2-1.4.2/ drwxr-xr-x  6 root root 64 2004-06-17 22:56 /usr/lib/SunJava2-1.4.2/ The name after the arrow is the content of the symbolic link and shows what is added to (if it's a relative name--one tbat does not start with '/') or used in place of (if it's an absolute name). In this example, /usr/lib/java is a symbolic link to /usr/lib/SunJava201.4 which is in turn a symbolic link to SunJava2-1.4.2. So when Sun releases Java 1.4.3, I can install it and leave 1.4.2 in place (in case there's a bug in 1.4.3) and then when that bug bites me, I can switch back to the known working version by merely changing the symbolic link that now points from SunJava2-1.4 to SunJava2-1.4.3 back to SunJava2-1.4.2 and programs that were tripping over that bug will start working again. -==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==- This is somewwhat out of context here. Anyone who wants that context is just going to have to read the thread in news.

Patrick Shanahan

Randall Schulz

Danny, On Wednesday 01 September 2004 15:17, Danny Sauer wrote:

Randall wrote regarding 'Re: [SLE] How do I remove a sym link?' on Wed, Sep 01 at 09:34:

...

Danny,

On Wednesday 01 September 2004 07:10, Danny Sauer wrote:

...

Tom wrote regarding 'Re: [SLE] How do I remove a sym link?' on Tue, Aug

31 at 17:22:

...

...

I'd go on, but I think that perhaps a description of what a symlink actually *is* might be in order. Again, I'm making assumptions, but it seems like you may not have a very good handle on what a symlink is for, what it does, etc. :)

I answered _that_ question just a week ago in news:alt.os.linux.suse! Look for the post from me with the subject "Re: KDE 3.3 fixing screensavers" on 2004-08-24 at 15:43.

But you left out the important parts - hard links can't span devices, while symlinks can, symlinks take up more space than hardlinks, and hardlinks are usually maintained when moving one of the entries, while symlinks break if the target's moved. :)

Mostly valid points, but the person had asked specifically about symbolic links. Plus, as I said, there was extra context both within the excerpted reply and the overall topic thread. As to the space issue, doesn't that depend on the implementation details of the file system in use? I recall at least one file system implementation (one of the BSD file systems, I think) that would store the content of files smaller than a certain threshhold in the inode itself. Most symbolic links would come under that threshold and hence require no more storage than an empty file. A directory entry (for a hard link) would require more actual file space. Anyway, I wasn't trying to write a treatise, just help someone out who was curious about what symbolic links were all about.

Not that I can be bothered to read other lists or anything...

Ha! There was a time when I didn't have to merely skim so many of the lists and groups I monitor.

--Danny, only replying for the sake of complete archives

Randall Schulz

Anders wrote regarding 'Re: [SLE] How do I remove a sym link?' on Wed, Sep 01 at 17:49:

On Wed, 2004-09-01 at 17:17 -0500, Danny Sauer wrote:

...

hard links can't span devices,

Actually, they can. What they can't do is span file systems.

Whoops - that's what I meant. :) --Danny, neglecting to remember LVM/RAID

On Wednesday 01 September 2004 6:13 am, Johan Nielsen wrote:

Dropped into my mailbox

http://applications.linux.com/article.pl?sid=04/08/27/1435207

CLI Magic: Symbolic links First.....interesting site. Thanks for that! That's bookmarked.

Second, I'm glad I didn't see this when I asked my question about sym linking. Because now I'm really confused. Hard, soft, -s, -i, blah.... My head is starting to hurt. I guess part of my problem is that there are certain things that I just can't pickup on from the Linux file structure. I think it's caused by years of using windows. Simple stuff to you folks really confuses the hell out of me. But, I'll keep plugging along. Tom -- Tom Nielsen Neuro Logic Systems, Inc. 1.805.389.5435 x18 www.neuro-logic.com