symlink versus FAT
 

I tried to symlink (aka ln -s) a file in Folder/A to Folder/B. If Folder is in the FAT32 partition (aka media/mmc1) I get "Operation not permitted". The easiest way to test for me on 3.2006.49-2 OS was with Midnight Commander BTW.

Next I moved both folders to the linux system partition and it worked fine, but I really wanted to then move both folders back to FAT32. That seemed to break the link or something, cuz the move gave a "failed" message.

Is there a solution or workaround? Thanks.

Re: symlink versus FAT
 

The FAT filesystem doesn't support symlinks... symlinks are a (glorious) feature of Linux filesystems, and the "system partition" is using the jffs2 filesysem which is symlink savvy.

The closest Microsoft ever came to supporting symlinks is with shortcuts, but that's not really the same thing at all as shortcuts are not really a feature of the filesystem, instead they're supported by the shell (Explorer) and associated high level file access APIs.

Re: symlink versus FAT
 

It's fun learning this stuff, thanks Milhouse!

Re: symlink versus FAT
 

Well, NTFS filesystem supports soft and hard links since windows 2000 but there is no tool from microsoft to create them. Microsoft needed it to implement their posix subsystem but otherwise this complex and confusing feature is hidden from normal users. You can install some 3rd party freeware to create such links.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS_junction_point

Also they added something in Vista too
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS_symbolic_link

Re: symlink versus FAT
 

M$ have come closer than Shortcuts since NTFS5 as they implemented reparse points supported at the file-system level.

But yeah - we're basically stuck when using FAT.