this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2025
28 points (100.0% liked)
Linux Questions
1281 readers
9 users here now
Linux questions Rules (in addition of the Lemmy.zip rules)
- stay on topic
- be nice (no name calling)
- do not post long blocks of text such as logs
- do not delete your posts
- only post questions (no information posts)
Tips for giving and receiving help
- be as clear and specific
- say thank you if a solution works
- verify your solutions before posting them as facts.
Any rule violations will result in disciplinary actions
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
@fell @linuxquestions IIRC it is just like with cp:
cp some_existing_file new_file
ln -s some_existing_file new_file
I can understand OP's confusion, though.
For move and copy it's pretty certain which is the 'from' and which is the 'to' - the order intuitively makes sense.
For symlinks it's more ambiguous based on your personal mental model.
For example, if you think about symlinks from the perspective of the original file before a link is created, then the original file represents the 'from' and the link is the 'to' (CORRECT)
But if you are thinking from the perspective of using a link after it's created, then you can easily imagine the symlink as the 'from' - because that's where you start when you follow it, and the target file/dir as the 'to' - because that's where you arrive after following it. (INCORRECT)
So I totally get the ambiguity.
You worded that goodly.