True of course. I realize I was rather comparing to copying the files and not the shortcuts. Nonetheless there are still advantages of the hardlinks IMHO. For instance I don't know a way for creating recursive shortcuts. Also you can handle it like a file (for instance browse the content with quickview or viewer), it doesn't jump to the origin folder if executed and so on.narayan wrote:Each shortcut occupies 100-400 bytes. Considering how many shortcuts we actually use, the overall size would be negligible.
If the destination is on another partition then you need a shortcut. But I can't see a reason to use a shortcut (apart from simply starting of programs from desktop etc., that's not for hardlinks of course) over a hardlink for the same partition.