Slashdot Mirror
Vista To Get Symlinks?
TheRealSlimShady writes "According to a post by Ward Ralston on the Windows server team's weblog, Vista server is to get symlinks as part of the SMB2 protocol." From the post: "In Vista/Longhorn server, the file system (NTFS) will start supporting a new filesystem object (examples of existing filesystem objects are files, folders etc.). This new object is a symbolic link. Think of a symbolic link as a pointer to another file system object (it can be a file, folder, shortcut or another symbolic link)."
...is a compliment of the highest form.
innovation from MS.
Welcome to the 1980s, Microsoft.
(Who was it who said: 'Those who don't know UNIX are condemned to recreate it. Badly.' ?)
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
Some of the Vista previews have shown off things dubbed "virtual folders" which work in a similar way to browsing by artist or album in the current version of Media Player. You can manipulate the files like it's a normal folder window, yet the actual files may be scattered over different folders and drives. Presumably it's an effort to make managing large amounts of music/video outside of Media Player easier. They almost certainly use these symbolic links. They're a bit different from shortcuts.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
From TFA:
"Now why is this relevant to the SMB2 protocol? This is because, for symbolic links to behave correctly, they should be interpreted on the client side of a file sharing protocol (otherwise this can lead to security holes). "
Is it not rather:
"If the client does not interpret symbolic links then nothing will work?"
See here :
m l
;-)
:(
http://www.sysinternals.com/Utilities/Junction.ht
Any feature new in Vista but the look and feel ?
What about booting the OS with less than about 20 services started and 256MB of memory used ?
Shortcuts are just ordinary files that, when opened, open the location it points to. A symlink, however, allows you transparently access it as though it were the actual file/folder; "C:\Shortcut to porn\hot lesbian action.jpg" won't work, whereas "C:\Symlink to porn\hot lesbian action.jpg" will. See the Wikipedia entry, for more info.
Perhaps you should of read the article, especially the bit "how is this different from a shortcut?"
The basis of it is that a shortcut is just a file - the exact same thing as a shortcut can be achieved by having a file with the target path just written in ascii inside, and assuming that the reader can tell it's a shortcut then it could get the target path sure, but if the reader is not equiped to specifically handle those shortcuts then it'll get muck.
A symlink masquerades as the actual file or folder, and the app doesn't need any specific handling to read the file. You can for example go into bash and write "cd symlink/" and it'll go to that folder. A shortcut is just a file, a symlink is an attribute of the filesystem.
Symbolic Link and SMB2 - should I also be waiting for ZeldaFS and MegaMon?
They are just not accesible from the shell. You need 3rd party utils to use them.. http://www.sysinternals.com/Utilities/Junction.htm l
that in about 2 years time, everybody will be running around saying that MS developed it, and that *nix copied it. Just the way it works.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The inventors of Unix scrapped symlinks when they did their next OS
Symbolic links make the Unix file system non-hierarchical, resulting in multiple valid path names for a given file. This ambiguity is a source of confusion, especially since some shells work overtime to present a consistent view from programs such as pwd, while other programs and the kernel itself do nothing about the problem.
http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/lexnames.html
NT *was* going to have executables that pretended to be files, i.e. when you opened the executable to get the contents it would run and return the output rather than the by bytes of the executable, with a special NT syscall to read the *real* contents. Kind of like a named pipe. I was looking forward to this but it didn't work out.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
We are the leaders, wait for us!
When shortcuts were invented for Win95 the Win32 API should have been built to treat a shortcut as the object it pointed to. That way they would have had real working links up front. Now they are going to be stuck with two types of link which work in different ways.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
I don't believe that the word innovate was used anywhere except here on slashdot. While it's been a long time coming, the blog entry that originally posted this admits that all these additions are addressing limitations in SMB.
It's not like Linux never copied an idea from another OS, yet it seems MS is not allowed to add a feature unless they thought of it themselves.
But then I guess everyone here gets a bit bitter when there is one less thing to complain about MS.
No France
oops, isnt there still:
Make that FIVE ways. All of them looking somewhat alike, but all with subtly different syntax, semantics, overhead, and security implications. Sweet!
Bullshit. Most unix software is not aware of symlinks because it doesn't have to be. Generally, only system utilities care about the existance of symlinks. The OS will detect an attempt to open an infinitely recursive symlink.
There can be some improvement, particularly with managing symlinks.
/usr/tunes to /usr/local/tunes. Later, you symlink /usr/local/tunes/YMCA.mp3 => ~/my_favorite_song.mp3. Now, you have a symlink that relies on both the existence of "/usr/tunes/" AND symlink "/usr/local/tunes >> /usr/tunes". Thus, while deleting 1st ("/usr/local/tunes => /usr/tunes") symlink doesn't actually delete anything, it does cause ~/my_favorite_song.mp3 to become unworkable.
1) When you move a destination object, symlinks don't follow the target . This leaves "broken" symlinks that refer to nothing. Why doesn't the mv command move these too?
2) When you symlink a symlinked folder, the root symlink is ignored. Let's say you symlink
3) Symlinks cause all kinds of weirds around chrooted file systems , especially ones on a different underlying filesystem. If you're not very careful, nothing is as it seems! Files go nowhere, files are accessable only sometimes, etc. It's logical when you understand and appreciate a symlink for what it is, just a referral, but it can be maddening when security contexts get distorted around a chroot...
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
...is a compliment of the highest form.
NTFS already had symlinks. Just that Explorer and cmd.exe didn't used the feature. But if created (with a third party tool) they are properly used.
Also, FAT had initially a flag indicating that an object is not a file, nor a folder, but a symlink. Unfortunately, the attribute got later used as a "Long Filename Part no. X" flag... talk about bad design..
gtkaml.org
Multiple streams are an absurdity. "Ok contestants, repeat after me: 'A file is a variable-length array of bytes.'" Steve Jobs: "A file is two variable-length arrays of bytes." BZZT. "Sorry Steve, thanks for playing." Bill Gates: "A file is N variable-length arrays of bytes." BZZT. "Whoops Bill, that's a directory. Looks like you're out too! Join us next week on 'Who wants to be an architect!'"
Reparse points are more commonly known in the UNIX community as 'mount points.'
Well. So does FAT, except it is called a crosslink, and aparently scandisk and various disk defragmentation tools do not handle it correctly ;-)
The whole point of symbolic links is that they're transparent. That way, an application doesn't have to parse a .lnk file. The OS handles reading/writing from the correct file. Real file symlinks have been missing from Windows for too long, I think it's about time they were added. (Whether or not anybody actually uses them instead of shortcuts is another story.)
I try and keep them relevant.
This story is a case in point. Symlinks are a hack that hides the fact that disk drive based namespaces are a crock. And a crock that's easily solved.
Unix is 30 years old, Linux copies it. Windows is not in the picture.
Linux / BSD et. al. offers very little innovation any more. Instead anything new is coming in through the user space and we end up with stuff like GnomeVFS and smb:// handlers.
The only real place where any real Unix like innovation has occured in recent times was in Bell Labs and the expresssions of that are Plan 9 and Inferno.
You can try some of the concepts out in user space through http://swtch.com/plan9port/
"Plan 9 from User Space (aka plan9port) is a port of many Plan 9 programs from their native Plan 9 environment to Unix-like operating systems.
supported systems : Linux (x86 and PowerPC), FreeBSD (x86), Mac OS X (Power PC), NetBSD (x86), OpenBSD (x86 and PowerPC), SunOS (Sparc)."
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
This is just one more clue that Microsoft has given up on the Windows code base, and that Vista will be based on BSD code.
.Net to BSD, as well as pushing for other software to be released under a BSD license ("All the better to steal it, my dear.").
.Net, were all based on other companies' products, or were developed by teams hired from outside.
To review the previous clues:
First, there was Microsoft's announcement that Vista (Longhorn) will use UNIX-like User Permissions:
See Longhorn to use UNIX-like User Permissions
Why would Microsoft do that, when even many Linux supporters agree that Windows permissions are finer grained? But if the new Windows is BSD-based, Microsoft would be forced to do that, or face rewriting a lot of the underlying BSD code.
Second, there was Microsoft's announcement that Unix compatibility will be "built in" to Vista:
See: Microsoft to Stop Releasing Services for Unix
Third, there is the fact that Microsoft ported
Fourth, there was Steve Ballmer talking about the Vista "reset" which started around 18 months ago.
See: Ballmer Pushes Microsoft Innovation, Talks Vista Reset
Does anyone really think that Microsoft could succeed in doing a major rearchitecturing of the Windows code now, in only 18 months, after they had tried and failed to do so many times over the last decade?
Besides, when has Microsoft ever shown the confidence or ability to succeed on their own? DOS, Windows NT, Internet Explorer, and
And now we have this new report that another basic feature of Unix, symbolic links, will be part of Vista.
Given all this evidence, I am fairly convinced that Vista will be based on one of the Open Source BSD distributions. Unlike Apple, however, Microsoft will probably try to keep it a secret, and claim it as their own innovation.
What will be the result?
On one hand, a BSD-based Vista might be a good thing, since it will result in a more stable, and less virus-prone Windows.
On the other hand, if Microsoft remains true to their history, they'll just screw it up with all the lock-in features they'll add on top. Like the VMS-and-OS/2-based Windows NT, which started out strong (version 3.51) then gradually degraded, I expect the benefits of a BSD-based Vista to be temporary.
Then again, Microsoft is just playing for time, as they continue their strategy of locking in the Internet. Thus, they only need Windows to be better for long eneough to fool their customers, again, while they tie them up with a new set of decommoditized protocols (.Net, Palladium, DRM, Windows Media, Office 12, and so on).