<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> Symlinks are generally a disaster. They should either be made bulletproof (automatically deleted when target is deleted), or eliminated. Someone long ago thought that giving many names to one file was a good idea. It was not. It only compensated for, and contributed to, the directory and file chaos in Unix/Linux. Ubuntu has made its own contribution by making up its own rules about where to place some files, and then adding symlinks in the standard places. Did I just use the word "standard"? What standard? Joel Bryan Juliano wrote: <blockquote cite="midb9fadc470612211937l3759eccaha49e0bba6b3c8685@mail.gmail.com" type="cite">On 12/22/06, Andrew Jorgensen <<a href="mailto:andrew.jorgensen@gmail.com">andrew.jorgensen@gmail.com</a>> wrote: <div> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">On 12/21/06, Joel Bryan Juliano <<a href="mailto:joelbryan.juliano@gmail.com">joelbryan.juliano@gmail.com</a>> wrote: > All Ubuntu applications should create directories that it needs, when it > doesn't exists. Use locate function to search for a specific file and > directories, and not rely on symbolic links. I'm curious what evidence you have that searching for a file is better than using a symlink. Thanks, Andrew Jorgensen </blockquote> </div> searching for a file using locate is better, because it doesn't depends too much on a static system, nowadays, systems are dynamically changing, upgrades, installations makes the system changes alot. It's an approach towards system scalability, in terms of architecture, platform, etc. Regards, Joel -- Carpe Diem </blockquote> </body> </html>