Comments on: HOWTO: Remove a Symbolic Link

By: Ubuntu 9.04 Server einrichten (Teil 1: LAMP-Server) » Arsenal of Wisdom

Ubuntu 9.04 Server einrichten (Teil 1: LAMP-Server) » Arsenal of Wisdom — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:13:13 +0000

[...] Anleitung habe ich zu Hilfe genommen: Mein Gehirn http://www.howtoforge.com/ubuntu_lamp_for_newbies http://www.everyjoe.com/newlinuxuser/howto-remove-a-symbolic-link/ VN:F [1.7.4_987]Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes [...]

By: Charlie

Charlie — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:02:11 +0000

on FC6 at least, your cwd has to be the directory in which the link was created for rm link to work.

this is implied by whitehorn’s post..

By: Saggi Malachi

Saggi Malachi — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:38:16 +0000

I was going ‘WTF?!’ for like 5 minutes while trying to do something I’ve done so many times in the past.
Being so lazy after a long day I just kept hitting the tab key for auto-complete (which has ofcourse added the trailing slash)

Thanks!

By: RossyMole

RossyMole — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 01:55:33 +0000

Thanks for the litte bit of “extra” help there! Didn’t really know that bit..

By: whitethorn

whitethorn — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:30:02 +0000

I just had the same problem, the mistake was using

rm nameofsymlink/
what you have to run is
rm nameofsymlink

without the backspace, the first one is trying to get rid of the folder being pointed to, while the second is just using the name of the file.

By: BartO

BartO — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 23:17:49 +0000

This is so useless. These forums are read by people all over the world, most of the non-native English speakers, like me. While your alternative might be better, I got the meaning of the first sentence just as well. And that’s what it’s all about. Getting an idea across. Not writing it down in the best possible way. That would be totally waisted on me, and probably on most non-native English speakers.

By: BartO

BartO — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 23:02:25 +0000

Ok, symbolic links are just really weird. Not only the rm -rf command follows the link, just rm seems to do it as well. That is, it doesn’t do anything for it thinks the link is a dirictory, and non-empty directories can’t be removed by just rm. But when I delete the link by pushing shift-del in nautilus, the link is removed whitout doing harm to the directory it pointed to. Both are done as root. I don’t get it…

By: Hoaobrook

Hoaobrook — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 20:39:11 +0000

JON, thanks for posting. I preferred the unlink method as any RM commands have to be validated by the administrator here – why? we had a newbie accidently run an rm -rf from root – at any rate, good on ya for posting this helpful bit. I was a little worried about running rm on the link thinking it might follow the link and delete the files ( I had the link on a folder).

By: Hoaobrook

Hoaobrook — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 20:35:09 +0000

English, you sound like a frustrated English teacher. I imagine you’ve spent many a days grading sub-par English papers, likely just before this post. I understand your frustration, however, publicly scorning the original poster for sharing knowledge is not the most efficient way of becoming part of a community online.

If you re-read your posting, you will see how you failed to tackle the true nature of the post.

By: English

English — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 08:29:06 +0000

In English, you’ve effectively said nothing:

“When you create a symbolic link, the link file you’ve created just points to the target file. Therefore, the link file has no other purpose in life than that. So, when you want to get rid of it, just delete the link file.”

The point is the last it in the paragraph. The preceding sentence references the link file points to the target file. If you want to get rid of it…

The it could mean either the target file, in which case you are stating that you can remove targetfiles by removing symlinks, or removing the symlink, the desired behavior.

The correct way to write this in English is not to use ‘it’. While there is a ‘correct’ way of interpreting *it*, all style books point to not using it, and referring to the noun.

Now, I’ve used two precedents here. I’ve gone for plain English, but in addition, I’ve used tenets of technical writing, where you answer a question rather than state a fact.

The additional sentence answers the question in a users mind, and completes the thought process.

If you re-read your posting, you will see how you failed to tackle the true nature of the post.