| On Tue, 17 Feb 1998, khalid wrote:
> Nicola Bernardini wrote:
> >
> > well this is not really exact. To be true, a symbolic link just
[snip]
>
> Nicola,
> why don't you reply to people asking you words you use the
> next time? I just replied because your initial answer to "fellow
> csounder" Matt J. Ingalls didn't give him a chance to get an idea
> of what a symbolic link is (in my opinion). As far as I remember,
> he didn't ask for inodes. I would like everybody to explain what
> they're talking about themselves (my opinion).
You are absolutely right. Since Matt is (as he says) a Mac user, I
took the thread of answering him with examples he could use on his
machine (a thing that I seemed to appreciate in a later posting).
In the reply to your mail, I just pointed out that a symbolic link
is even *better* than what you described, that's all. You know,
it is difficult to discern people faces and attitudes from ASCII
characters, so very often mail posting look like presumptous or
offensive while that was not their initial intention. It happens
to me too.
nicb
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicola Bernardini
E-mail: nicb@axnet.it
Re graphics: A picture is worth 10K words -- but only those to describe
the picture. Hardly any sets of 10K words can be adequately described
with pictures.
|