># well, i'll admit to not having "every other unix system" to check, but
># based on the experience i've accumulated over the years, i feel i can
># authoritatively say that the way 4.4bsd derived systems deal with
># symlinks is a "little different".
>
>I'm also a little sheepish at having to admit that in all my years I've
>been doing UNIX, I never experimented with hard-linking symlinks!

it's not really a matter of trying to do it, just noticing what
happens if you accidentally attempt it.

># i think the phrase that's important is "underlying object pointed at
># by name1".  the file to which the symlink refers should be the
># "underlying object".
>
>Yes, that's a pretty crucial point, there...

:)

>/me climbs down a notch, muttering something incomprehensible regarding
>"history" and "research"...

wibble!

-- 
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
codewarrior@daemon.org             * "ah!  i see you have the internet
twofsonet@graffiti.com (Andrew Brown)                that goes *ping*!"
werdna@squooshy.com       * "information is power -- share the wealth."