[lug] Cannot connect to the Internet with a web browser whentrying to use an

[D. Stimits]

Peter Hutnick wrote:
> D. Stimits said:
> 
>>Peter Hutnick wrote:
>>
>>>Actually, they seem to be hard links, not copies.  See
>>>https://listman.redhat.com/pipermail/valhalla-list/2002-June/003959.html
>>>
>>>RH's ideas about config files seem to be getting more and more
>>>perverse as time goes on.
>>
>>I would guess that someone forgot the "-s" of ln while doing work on the
>> networking. Most likely it is a mistake, though it is hard to read the
>>mind of RH.
> 
> 
> Why do you feel it is more likely that someone forgot the -s than that it
> is intentional?
> 
> They have every reason to belive that both dirs will be on the same fs,
> and symlinks have the disadvantage of being "orpanable."  Why /not/ use
> hard links?

Because it is harder to debug dual hard links, and in the past, I have 
not heard of RH doing this...it breaks with their tradition wrt using 
sym links for such things. It may not break wrt doing things in an odd 
way though...

D. Stimits, stimits AT attbi.com