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? -- ---------------------------- Tom Nielsen Neuro Logic Systems, Inc. 805.389.5435 x18 www.neuro-logic.com ----------------------------
* Tom Nielsen <tom@neuro-logic.com> [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
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 <tom@neuro-logic.com> [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 ----------------------------
* Tom Nielsen <tom@neuro-logic.com> [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. :^) -- 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 17:37 skrev Patrick Shanahan:
* Tom Nielsen <tom@neuro-logic.com> [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
Patrick, On Monday 30 August 2004 21:11, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Tom Nielsen <tom@neuro-logic.com> [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
Did you follow your own advice in order to confirm it's usefulness? 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 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.
Patrick Shanahan
Randall Schulz
* Randall R Schulz <rschulz@sonic.net> [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 $$$s) for someone who wants *me* to do the work. -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/photos
On Tuesday 31 August 2004 10:20 am, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
He will learn to do for himself if you lead him. He will learn to rely on you if you provide the answers. And I am using 'you' in general, not specifically Randal R Schultz.
I will help anyone who asks for help and shows that he is making an effort, ie: wants *assistance*.
I will *work* (for $$$s) for someone who wants *me* to do the work. Ahh, I was right. You are playing the parent role. That's what I thought.
Again, I'm too busy to go thru countless threads looking for an answer. That's why the group is here....I think. I don't mind searching when I have time or know what I'm looking for. Before I asked the group I did search and read the man page, but it didn't make any sense. I don't have all day, like other folks which are retired, to figure stuff out. Like most folks on this list, I work, I have a home life and family I have to tend to. I'm old enough to know when to ask for help and when not too. It's best if you don't treat folks like a child and think you're trying to "better" themselves. If I wanted self-help I call Anthony Robins. I don't want you to *work* for me, but I don't want a half-assed answer either. I'm dropping this now. Toodles. -- Tom Nielsen Neuro Logic Systems, Inc. 1.805.389.5435 x18 www.neuro-logic.com
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 10:37:49 -0700 Tom Nielsen <tom@neuro-logic.com> 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
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 -- ---------------------------- Tom Nielsen Neuro Logic Systems, Inc. 805.389.5435 x18 www.neuro-logic.com ----------------------------
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
Onsdag den 1. september 2004 00:22 skrev Johan Nielsen:
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
>>> I hate to jump in to a flame war, but I can't sit back and watch this idly. The only thing that you have shown with your e-mail is arrogance on your
Reply from: "Steve Wagoner" <steve@silversamurai.com> Who can't remain IDLE: Quote: part. Because it took you days of research "back in the days" you feel that others should have to spend days of research or they aren't worthy enough to share your knowledge. You talk about information being so widely published, but forget that it is people like us in forums like this that publish it. A quick and easy answer to his question would have provided a little more reference for others of us sharing his problem. If the question is so simple and your time so valuable, perhaps it would have been quicker to answer his question or easier to have said nothing. Instead you have wasted my time, his time, and yours with your arrogant and less than helpful attitude <<<<<<<<<<<<<
Terence, On Tuesday 31 August 2004 13:58, Terence McCarthy wrote:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 10:37:49 -0700
Tom Nielsen <tom@neuro-logic.com> 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
Patrick, On Tuesday 31 August 2004 10:20, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Randall R Schulz <rschulz@sonic.net> [08-31-04 00:44]:
Did you follow your own advice in order to confirm it's usefulness?
sure did.
Then you know that "man rm" will in no way answer Tom's question.
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...
Yes. As did I and others.
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.
It is necessary. Hard links are not an issue at all, but the "unlink(3p)" man page is not limited to the treatment of hard links. And only on the unlink(3p) man page is the information presented about how symbolic links are special. The (3p) section of the manual is for library calls, not something we generally consider non-programmers to have to be familiar with to successfully use the system.
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.
Not at all. As you see, I posted another reply that suggested that in this case a simple experiment would have told him what he needed to know. And I do generally subscribe to the notion that one learns better by being more engaged in whatever action is required to access the desired knowledge. Experimentation is usually a more engaged mode than simple asking a question and receiving an answer.
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*.
And I suggest that when the request does not meet your criteria of a question deserving an answer from you, you should simply remain silent. 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, I (try to) hold my tongue (but do not always succeed).
...
Patrick Shanahan
Randall Schulz
* Randall R Schulz <rschulz@sonic.net> [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
Patrick, On Tuesday 31 August 2004 11:06, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Randall R Schulz <rschulz@sonic.net> [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 don't know what "casting generalities" means, but... You clearly were being flip in your original instruction to use the manual and equally clearly did not bother to confirm your advice to "man rm". Then you became defensive when this was pointed out. And here we are.
Patrick Shanahan
Randall Schulz
Tirsdag den 31. august 2004 06:11 skrev Patrick Shanahan:
* Tom Nielsen <tom@neuro-logic.com> [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
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
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
Is there a way to export the Linux fonts to MS-Windows?
If you're using TTF fonts under Linux (eg, I use the Bitstream Vera fonts) they should install on a Windows machine like any other TTF font. Alternatively, you could use the Windows fonts on Linux when creating a document that Windows users need to be able to view. In YaST's Online Update (YOU), install the fetchmsttfonts patch to get the MS core font set (Arial, Times New Roman, Courier New, Verdana, etc) -- James Ogley, Webmaster, usr local bin & Planet SuSE james@rubberturnip.org.uk www.rubberturnip.org.uk Updated GNOME packages for SUSE LINUX: www.usr-local-bin.org Latest SUSE News and Blogs: www.planetsuse.org
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 ____________
Nico wrote:
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?
Yes. Copy the fonts (*.ttf files) from the OpenOffice installation (perhaps share/fonts/truetype) to C:\windows\fonts and everything should work. If that's too complicated, you could install OpenOffice on the Windows PCs and then the fonts would get installed anyway. If you're planning to migrate, giving people a chance to try OpenOffice first may help anyway. An alternative approach would be to define your own template(s) in OpenOffice so that the default fonts are Times and Arial. Then everything should work as desired, provided you've the MS fonts installed in Linux. -- JDL
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
On Tuesday 31 August 2004 12:32, Damon Register wrote:
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
apropos link: a lot of lines, one of them is 'ln', the tool to create links. man ln: somewhere in it, it is advised to use 'info coreutils ln', because the info files contain more information than the man pages. info coreutils ln: press the <Tab>-key once, it jumps to '*Note Symbolic Links:', then hit <Enter>. That page should give you enough info to at least *try* to *think* of the 'rm' command. apropos remove: lists among others the script 'cleanlinks'. That could tempt you to see if it is a readable file, and have a look at it. That would show you the most crucial information on how to remove symlinks: it has an example! ;D Yes, a real-world example. The FM has more info than you think. ;P You only need to know how to get the most out of it. Information retrieval (how to find info) is getting more and more important. Cheers, Leen
* Damon Register <damon.w.register@lmco.com> [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
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
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 ----------------------------
* Tom Nielsen <tom@neuro-logic.com> [08-31-04 00:12]:
Patrick, Now see....Randall is a star poster.
You are doing the rating.
Gives the information people requests.
See my reply to Randall's critism earlier in this thread.
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.
You are the list-admin now?
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.
:^) Again, you are doing the rating and know nothing...
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.
I have nothing to say that I cannot or will not say on the list. If you are making a threat, come right out and say it. But your post is not about SuSE or linux and could be considered OT. I suggest you drop it. -- 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
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
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?
rm File1 rm File2 ln -s File3 File1 If I understand you correctly. -- Jim Sabatke Hire Me!! - See my resume at http://my.execpc.com/~jsabatke Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup. NOTE: Please do not email me any attachments with Microsoft extensions. They are deleted on my ISP's server before I ever see them, and no bounce message is sent.
On Mon, 2004-08-30 at 23:53, 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?
There's a couple of ways of reading this, so let me answer the one that I thkink is prompting you to explain the relationship between the three files. I assume that you want to maintain the link from file1 to file3 and remove file2 altogether. ln -s /path/to/filetolink /path/to/create/link rm /path/to/file2 may require -f option and root authority. If this isn't it and you just want to kill the link to file2, then just rm the link file. Mike
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? Q: How do you remove a symlink? A: With rm, just like any other file... 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... £0.02 Dylan -- "I see your Schwartz is as big as mine" -Dark Helmet
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
Tom wrote regarding 'Re: [SLE] How do I remove a sym link?' on Tue, Aug 31 at 11:51: [...]
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.
Did you ever find an answer to that question? There are too many people whining about "how to best answer the question" for me to tell, and I didn't follow the list until the end of the day today... If 1 points to 2 and 2 points to 3, then "2" will have to be replaced with something other than the pointer to 3 in order for it to make any sense for 1 to still point to 2. Removing "2" (rm 2) would do what you're asking, but then you're left with a dangling symlink - "1" points to nothing. Eh, whatever. I just felt like I oughtta contribute to the thread, too. I hate being left out. :) --Danny
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 ----------------------------
Tom wrote regarding 'Re: [SLE] How do I remove a sym link?' on Tue, Aug 31 at 17:22:
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.
Was that a typo? If not, then you have two symbolic links that are doing nothing but 1) taking up space and 2) providing entries in the directory listing. In most cases, neither of those things are really desirable. Far be it from me to tell you how to use your filesystem, but something linked to itself is almost as useless as something linked to something linked to itself. You've just got a couple of filenames that can not contain any data, basically. 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. :) --Danny, hoping to be corrected if wrong
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
* Randall R Schulz <rschulz@sonic.net> [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. -- 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
Patrick, On Wednesday 01 September 2004 08:46, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Randall R Schulz <rschulz@sonic.net> [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
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. :) Not that I can be bothered to read other lists or anything... --Danny, only replying for the sake of complete archives
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
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.
while symlinks can, symlinks take up more space than hardlinks,
Yeah, but the difference is negligeble. A hard link will take up one directory entry, while a symlink (or most symlinks) will take up one directory entry plus one inode. Usually not enough to be concerned with
and hardlinks are usually maintained when moving one of the entries, while symlinks break if the target's moved. :)
And the most important difference of all: while there is a hard link pointing to a file, the file will not be deleted. Symlinks aren't counted that way
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
To everyone, I'm sorry I created such a stir on this list. Fact is what ever I did to the sym link caused my problem to go away. So I'm happy. I know how to create a sym link, but still have questions on how to take it away.....DON'T WORRY THIS IS NOT A REQUEST....I'm going to test it out on my machine. Those that helped me I am thankful to for now I have a running opengroupware server running (for the most part). I'd like to request that this be dropped now for I don't want to create anymore ill feelings. Please note that if I ask a question I have tried to look it up or figure it out. There are things I figure out on a daily basis which I don't mention. (no, really it's the truth). I'm not as smart as most of you folks when it comes to some of this stuff and sometimes things just don't click. Anyway, thanks for the help and I hope we can put this to bed. Remember....only happy thoughts :-) -- Tom Nielsen Neuro Logic Systems, Inc. 1.805.389.5435 x18 www.neuro-logic.com
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?
I assume you knew about the "rm" command and were wondering about how symlinks might be different. In particular, you wondered if applying rm to a symbolic link does one of these things: 1) Nothing 2) Removes the symbolic link 3) Removes the target of the symbolic link 4) Removes both the symbolic link and its target Now we already know that the answer is (2), but I submit that in a case like this, a simple concocted test would be enough to discover the behavior in question.
Tom Nielsen
Randall Schulz
Tirsdag den 31. august 2004 05:53 skrev Tom Nielsen:
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? -- ---------------------------- Tom Nielsen Neuro Logic Systems, Inc. 805.389.5435 x18 www.neuro-logic.com ---------------------------- Dropped into my mailbox
http://applications.linux.com/article.pl?sid=04/08/27/1435207 CLI Magic: Symbolic links
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
Onsdag den 1. september 2004 18:25 skrev Tom Nielsen:
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.
Now don't get me wrong on this one. ...... As I understand above from you you'd actually benefit a lot from trying to dig down the "knowledge-structure" of linux/*nix as I indicated earlier. This suggestion is not to make you suffer in any way but to experience things and get a better fundamental understanding of how things or parts of them work. I don't think you have to be a wizard from another planet to understand things. Take it in small steps and have fun with it ;-) If you head hurts get away from the PC for a couple of hours reading a nice book (about *nix of course) or get some fresh air ;-) Some recommended reading: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html For you and others
participants (18)
-
Anders Johansson -
Damon Register -
Danny Sauer -
David Robertson -
Dylan -
James Knott -
James Ogley -
Jim Sabatke -
Johan Nielsen -
John Lamb -
Leendert Meyer -
Mike McMullin -
Nico -
Patrick Shanahan -
pinto -
Randall R Schulz -
Terence McCarthy -
Tom Nielsen