TheRealSlimShady writes "According to a post by Ward Ralston on the Windows server team's weblog, Vista server is to get symlinks as part of the SMB2 protocol." From the post: "In Vista/Longhorn server, the file system (NTFS) will start supporting a new filesystem object (examples of existing filesystem objects are files, folders etc.). This new object is a symbolic link. Think of a symbolic link as a pointer to another file system object (it can be a file, folder, shortcut or another symbolic link)."Ads_xl=0;Ads_yl=0;Ads_xp='';Ads_yp='';Ads_xp1='';Ads_yp1='';Ads_par='';Ads_cnturl='';Ads_prf='page=article';Ads_channels='RON_P6_IMU';Ads_wrd='microsoft,it';Ads_kid=0;Ads_bid=0;Ads_sec=0; Vista To Get Symlinks? Log in/Create an Account | Top | 533 comments (Spill at 50!) | Index Only | Search Discussion Display Options Threshold: -1: 533 comments 0: 523 comments 1: 441 comments 2: 284 comments 3: 91 comments 4: 48 comments 5: 30 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. Duplication... (Score:5, Insightful) by Erik_the_Awful (675368) on Monday October 31, @05:39AM (#13913691) (Last Journal: Wednesday September 17, @12:40PM) ...is a compliment of the highest form. [ Reply to ThisRe:Duplication... by thatshortkid (Score:2) Monday October 31, @06:07AMRe:Duplication... by jallen02 (Score:2) Monday October 31, @07:04AM Duplication... (Score:5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 31, @06:50AM (#13913932) ...is a compliment of the highest form. [ Reply to This | ParentDuplication... by millennial (Score:2) Monday October 31, @02:05PMRe:Duplication... by booch (Score:2) Monday October 31, @02:30PMRe:Duplication... by Lxy (Score:2) Monday October 31, @03:45PM More Dupe than you think (Score:4, Informative) by TrentL (761772) on Monday October 31, @07:23AM (#13914024) (http://www.spacerook.com/) I recall this [slashdot.org] Slashdot story from several years ago (damn, I can't believe a Slashdot headline has stayed with me that long). Sadly, the links referenced in the article are broken, so I don't recall exactly what it was about. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:More Dupe than you think by arivanov (Score:2) Monday October 31, @08:47AMRe:More Dupe than you think by Firehawke (Score:3) Monday October 31, @10:35AMRe:More Dupe than you think by jp10558 (Score:2) Monday October 31, @06:17PMRe:More Dupe than you think by Bronster (Score:2) Monday October 31, @07:13PM2 replies beneath your current threshold. Yet more great (Score:5, Funny) by Skiron (735617) on Monday October 31, @05:40AM (#13913693) (http://www.linicks.net/) innovation from MS. [ Reply to This Re:Yet more great (Score:5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 31, @05:44AM (#13913717) Yea, they better hurry up and patent it before those unix hippies copy it. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Yet more great by tpgp (Score:3) Monday October 31, @06:42AMRe:Yet more great by perdelucena (Score:3) Monday October 31, @08:28AMRe:Yet more great by killjoe (Score:2) Monday October 31, @05:14PMRe:Yet more great by ConceptJunkie (Score:2) Monday October 31, @09:53PMRe:Yet more great by Citizen of Earth (Score:2) Monday October 31, @12:07PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Funny thing is... (Score:5, Insightful) by WindBourne (631190) on Monday October 31, @05:53AM (#13913748) (Last Journal: Friday June 24, @01:33PM) that in about 2 years time, everybody will be running around saying that MS developed it, and that *nix copied it. Just the way it works. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Funny thing is... by Keeper (Score:3) Monday October 31, @06:42AMRe:Funny thing is... by ozmanjusri (Score:2) Monday October 31, @07:48AMRe:Funny thing is... by cbreaker (Score:2) Monday October 31, @10:10AMRe:Funny thing is... by robertjw (Score:2) Monday October 31, @10:41AMRe:Funny thing is... by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Monday October 31, @12:15PM Re:Funny thing is... (Score:4, Funny) by linguae (763922) on Monday October 31, @03:13PM (#13917560) Dennis Thompson? I didn't know that Dennis Ritchie [bell-labs.com] and Ken Thompson [bell-labs.com] fused and merged together back in the 60s to become ... Dennis Thompson. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Funny thing is... by Stephen Samuel (Score:2) Monday October 31, @04:53PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:Yet more great (Score:5, Funny) by kd3bj (733314) on Monday October 31, @06:43AM (#13913919) (http://www.nadovich.com/chris) What's next?Forward slashes?Text files without ^m's? [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Yet more great by trezor (Score:3) Monday October 31, @07:26AMRe:Yet more great by NetRAVEN5000 (Score:1) Monday October 31, @05:00PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.NTFS already had symlinks? by emil (Score:2) Monday October 31, @10:53AMRe:NTFS already had symlinks? by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Monday October 31, @11:22AM Re:NTFS already had symlinks? (Score:4, Insightful) by Richard Steiner (1585) <rsteiner@visi.com> on Monday October 31, @11:43AM (#13915804) (http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner | Last Journal: Wednesday April 16, @08:53AM) FAT filesystems have had hard links since the beginning, but CHKDSK doesn't like 'em... :-) [ Reply to This | ParentRe:NTFS already had symlinks? by KillerCow (Score:2) Monday October 31, @06:32PMRe:Yet more great by Myria (Score:2) Monday October 31, @01:03PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:Yet more great (Score:5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 31, @07:23AM (#13914028) all your symbolic links are belong to SCO [ Reply to This | ParentWhat I want to know is... by ModernGeek (Score:1) Monday October 31, @08:51AMRe:What I want to know is... by autOmato (Score:1) Monday October 31, @08:56AMRe:What I want to know is... by Philip K Dickhead (Score:1) Monday October 31, @01:14PMNevermind by ModernGeek (Score:1) Monday October 31, @09:03AM Re:Nevermind (Score:5, Insightful) by bcat24 (914105) on Monday October 31, @09:16AM (#13914643) The whole point of symbolic links is that they're transparent. That way, an application doesn't have to parse a .lnk file. The OS handles reading/writing from the correct file. Real file symlinks have been missing from Windows for too long, I think it's about time they were added. (Whether or not anybody actually uses them instead of shortcuts is another story.) [ Reply to This | ParentA Lot of Rope by arjay-tea (Score:1) Monday October 31, @12:16PMRe:A Lot of Rope by avdp (Score:2) Monday October 31, @06:59PMRe:Nevermind by AVryhof (Score:1) Monday October 31, @01:15PMRe:Nevermind by NetRAVEN5000 (Score:1) Monday October 31, @05:10PM Re:Nevermind (Score:4, Informative) by avdp (22065) * on Monday October 31, @09:36AM (#13914790) Yes, you could essentially re-implement Explorer in every app written by having them handle the *.lnk files the way Explorer does. It sort of is counterproductive. It is much cleaner to have that in the filesystem (or at least the MS APIs to open files) so that it is transparent to apps. Frankly the way the shortcut thing was implemented is a ugly hack. I figured what happened is that they wanted the symlink concept, but didn't want to (or couldn't) change the filesystem. Looks like they're finally (10 years later) decided to do it right.As far as users are concerned, I suspect they won't know/see the difference. Creating symlinks will just work like creating shortcuts.  [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Nevermind by networkBoy (Score:2) Monday October 31, @10:42AMRe:Nevermind by TheGSRGuy (Score:1) Monday October 31, @10:54AMRe:Nevermind by Neoncow (Score:1) Monday October 31, @02:09PMRe:Nevermind by mallardtheduck (Score:2) Monday October 31, @03:54PMRe:Nevermind by NetRAVEN5000 (Score:1) Monday October 31, @05:18PMRe:Nevermind by avdp (Score:2) Monday October 31, @06:54PMRe:Nevermind by avdp (Score:2) Monday October 31, @07:02PMRe:Nevermind by NetRAVEN5000 (Score:1) Monday October 31, @08:13PMRe:Yet more great by kuzb (Score:2) Monday October 31, @09:02AM Vista Will Probably Be BSD-Based (Score:5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 31, @09:30AM (#13914753) This is just one more clue that Microsoft has given up on the Windows code base, and that Vista will be based on BSD code.To review the previous clues:First, there was Microsoft's announcement that Vista (Longhorn) will use UNIX-like User Permissions:See Longhorn to use UNIX-like User Permissions [slashdot.org]Why would Microsoft do that, when even many Linux supporters agree that Windows permissions are finer grained? But if the new Windows is BSD-based, Microsoft would be forced to do that, or face rewriting a lot of the underlying BSD code.Second, there was Microsoft's announcement that Unix compatibility will be "built in" to Vista:See: Microsoft to Stop Releasing Services for Unix [slashdot.org]Third, there is the fact that Microsoft ported .Net to BSD, as well as pushing for other software to be released under a BSD license ("All the better to steal it, my dear.").Fourth, there was Steve Ballmer talking about the Vista "reset" which started around 18 months ago.See: Ballmer Pushes Microsoft Innovation, Talks Vista Reset [windowsitpro.com]Does anyone really think that Microsoft could succeed in doing a major rearchitecturing of the Windows code now, in only 18 months, after they had tried and failed to do so many times over the last decade?Besides, when has Microsoft ever shown the confidence or ability to succeed on their own? DOS, Windows NT, Internet Explorer, and .Net, were all based on other companies' products, or were developed by teams hired from outside.And now we have this new report that another basic feature of Unix, symbolic links, will be part of Vista.Given all this evidence, I am fairly convinced that Vista will be based on one of the Open Source BSD distributions. Unlike Apple, however, Microsoft will probably try to keep it a secret, and claim it as their own innovation.What will be the result?On one hand, a BSD-based Vista might be a good thing, since it will result in a more stable, and less virus-prone Windows.On the other hand, if Microsoft remains true to their history, they'll just screw it up with all the lock-in features they'll add on top. Like the VMS-and-OS/2-based Windows NT, which started out strong (version 3.51) then gradually degraded, I expect the benefits of a BSD-based Vista to be temporary.Then again, Microsoft is just playing for time, as they continue their strategy of locking in the Internet. Thus, they only need Windows to be better for long eneough to fool their customers, again, while they tie them up with a new set of decommoditized protocols (.Net, Palladium, DRM, Windows Media, Office 12, and so on). [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Vista Will Probably Be BSD-Based by LO0G (Score:3) Monday October 31, @10:22AMRe:Vista Will Probably Be BSD-Based by BobPaul (Score:2) Monday October 31, @11:21AMRe:Vista Will Probably Be BSD-Based by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Monday October 31, @12:09PMRe:Vista Will Probably Be BSD-Based by Guy Harris (Score:2) Monday October 31, @03:08PMRe:Vista Will Probably Be BSD-Based by einhverfr (Score:2) Monday October 31, @05:15PMRe:Vista Will Probably Be BSD-Based by NetRAVEN5000 (Score:1) Monday October 31, @05:27PMRe:Vista Will Probably Be BSD-Based by LO0G (Score:2) Monday October 31, @07:09PMRe:Vista Will Probably Be BSD-Based by NetRAVEN5000 (Score:1) Monday October 31, @09:15PMRe:Vista Will Probably Be BSD-Based by Poltras (Score:2) Monday October 31, @11:05AMRe:Vista Will Probably Be BSD-Based by Eli Gottlieb (Score:1) Monday October 31, @03:02PMRe:Vista Will Probably Be BSD-Based by moosesocks (Score:3) Monday October 31, @02:41PMThat's what Crossover is for... by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Monday October 31, @04:53PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Yet more great by octaene (Score:2) Monday October 31, @09:55AMRe:Yet more great by Haydn Fenton (Score:2) Monday October 31, @11:16AMRe:Yet more great by NetRAVEN5000 (Score:1) Monday October 31, @04:48PM3 replies beneath your current threshold.Symbolic links? by el_womble (Score:3) Monday October 31, @05:41AM Re:Symbolic links? (Score:5, Insightful) by m4dm4n (888871) <madman@nofrance.info> on Monday October 31, @06:06AM (#13913791) (http://nofrance.info/) I don't believe that the word innovate was used anywhere except here on slashdot. While it's been a long time coming, the blog entry that originally posted this admits that all these additions are addressing limitations in SMB.It's not like Linux never copied an idea from another OS, yet it seems MS is not allowed to add a feature unless they thought of it themselves.But then I guess everyone here gets a bit bitter when there is one less thing to complain about MS. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Symbolic links? by ben_rh (Score:2) Monday October 31, @06:34AM Re:Symbolic links? (Score:5, Informative) by b100dian (771163) on Monday October 31, @07:11AM (#13913989) (http://b100dian.lx.ro/) NTFS already had symlinks. Just that Explorer and cmd.exe didn't used the feature. But if created (with a third party tool) they are properly used.Also, FAT had initially a flag indicating that an object is not a file, nor a folder, but a symlink. Unfortunately, the attribute got later used as a "Long Filename Part no. X" flag... talk about bad design.. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Symbolic links? by Trelane (Score:3) Monday October 31, @08:17AM Re:Symbolic links? (Score:4, Informative) by masklinn (823351) <slashdot DOT org AT masklinn DOT net> on Monday October 31, @08:24AM (#13914336) Windows 2k and above have both hardlinks (which are available via standard tools) as well as symlinks, restricted to directories only and not available via the OS' tools.Check Juctions [sysinternals.com] for the creation and handling of symlinks. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Symbolic links? by Trelane (Score:2) Monday October 31, @08:30AMRe:Symbolic links? by Grrreat (Score:1) Monday October 31, @12:16PMRe:Symbolic links? by masklinn (Score:3) Monday October 31, @09:18AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Symbolic links? by Shulai (Score:1) Monday October 31, @06:35AMRe:Symbolic links? by giorgiofr (Score:1) Monday October 31, @06:59AMRe:Symbolic links? by richie2000 (Score:2) Monday October 31, @07:02AMRe:Symbolic links? by aichpvee (Score:2) Monday October 31, @08:24AMNew Slogans by lbmouse (Score:1) Monday October 31, @09:25AMRe:New Slogans by richie2000 (Score:2) Monday October 31, @10:15AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Symbolic links? by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Monday October 31, @06:35AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Symbolic links? by l3v1 (Score:2) Monday October 31, @07:07AMRe:Symbolic links? by PunkOfLinux (Score:1) Monday October 31, @07:21AMRe:Symbolic links? by S.O.B. (Score:2) Monday October 31, @07:38AMRe:Symbolic links? by masklinn (Score:2) Monday October 31, @08:27AMRe:Symbolic links? by zootm (Score:2) Monday October 31, @07:37AM Re:Symbolic links? (Score:4, Informative) by SonicBurst (546373) on Monday October 31, @08:21AM (#13914319) (http://slashdot.org/) I don't know where you got your info from, but plugging in a hotswap disk does NOT require a reboot, and hasn't since at least Windows 2000, but probably even NT 4. Open computer management, go to disk configuration, and click "rescan disks". It'll detect the drive just fine. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Symbolic links? by ObsessiveMathsFreak (Score:2) Monday October 31, @10:16AMRe:Symbolic links? by JesseMcDonald (Score:1) Monday October 31, @10:48AMRe:Symbolic links? by Argon (Score:1) Monday October 31, @07:37AMRe:Symbolic links? by I'm Don Giovanni (Score:1) Monday October 31, @04:40PMinsert hipocritical sentiment here by tod_miller (Score:2) Monday October 31, @07:46AMRe:insert hipocritical sentiment here by man_of_mr_e (Score:2) Monday October 31, @01:29PMRe:Symbolic links? by Eil (Score:2) Monday October 31, @11:04AMRe:Symbolic links? by MaskedSlacker (Score:1) Monday October 31, @11:43AMRe:Symbolic links? by TheMadPenguin (Score:1) Monday October 31, @02:42PMRe:Symbolic links? by ediron2 (Score:2) Monday October 31, @03:11PMRe:Symbolic links? by tdubya (Score:1) Monday October 31, @03:51PMRe:Symbolic links? by ediron2 (Score:2) Monday October 31, @04:10PMRe:Symbolic links? by ediron2 (Score:2) Monday October 31, @04:26PMRe:Symbolic links? by NetRAVEN5000 (Score:1) Monday October 31, @06:11PMRe:Symbolic links? by abdulla (Score:2) Monday October 31, @10:16PM2 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:Symbolic links? by ben_rh (Score:3) Monday October 31, @06:08AMRe:Symbolic links? by coolsva (Score:2) Monday October 31, @07:31AMSome people use FAT32... by Richard Steiner (Score:2) Monday October 31, @11:50AMRe:Symbolic links? by Anonymous Coward (Score:3) Monday October 31, @07:48AMRe:Symbolic links? by robertjw (Score:2) Monday October 31, @10:59AMRe:Symbolic links? by Daytona955i (Score:2) Monday October 31, @11:44AMRe:Symbolic links? by MaskedSlacker (Score:1) Monday October 31, @11:49AMRe:Symbolic links? by mallardtheduck (Score:3) Monday October 31, @04:03PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.So what's the patent number?? by doublem (Score:2) Monday October 31, @07:49AM Allow me to be the first to say... (Score:5, Funny) by Noryungi (70322) on Monday October 31, @05:41AM (#13913700) (http://www.slack-fr.org/ | Last Journal: Friday October 28, @06:55PM) Welcome to the 1980s, Microsoft.(Who was it who said: 'Those who don't know UNIX are condemned to recreate it. Badly.' ?) [ Reply to This Re:Allow me to be the first to say... (Score:4, Insightful) by rolfwind (528248) on Monday October 31, @05:48AM (#13913733) I'm sure that's what those Plan9 folks are thinking of the Linux/BSD camp^_^ [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Allow me to be the first to say... by leomekenkamp (Score:2) Monday October 31, @06:52AM Re:Allow me to be the first to say... (Score:5, Insightful) by mrogers (85392) on Monday October 31, @08:29AM (#13914378) (http://elgoog.rb-hosting.de/) That after all those years Microsoft still has drive letters with a dirty hack (my desktop / my computer /whatever) to 'unify' them, has only broken symlink functionality (shortcuts), and only now mentiones symlinks is quite pathetic, if you ask me.Backward compatibility is absolutely indispensable for Microsoft - the only reason it's still the market leader after all the lawsuits, bad publicity and downright talented competition of the last few years is because nobody wants to break compatibility with their existing software, documents, networks and hardware. Microsoft understands this, and while I'm sure it drives a lot of MS developers insane, backward compatibility is always given top priority, even if it makes the architecture horribly ugly and illogical.(If you want to see the Unix equivalent, read the chapter on terminal I/O in Stevens' Advanced Programming for the UNIX Environment. There are backward compatibility hacks in there that are so ugly you'll wish you'd been born blind.) [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Allow me to be the first to say... by leomekenkamp (Score:2) Monday October 31, @09:17AMRe:Allow me to be the first to say... by Urusai (Score:1) Monday October 31, @10:51AMRe:Allow me to be the first to say... by ckaminski (Score:2) Monday October 31, @12:21PMAh, the "backwards comptibility" card... by Richard Steiner (Score:3) Monday October 31, @11:56AMRe:Ah, the "backwards comptibility" card... by ckaminski (Score:2) Monday October 31, @12:51PMDepends. by Richard Steiner (Score:2) Monday October 31, @05:23PMRe:Ah, the "backwards comptibility" card... by man_of_mr_e (Score:2) Monday October 31, @01:35PMRe:Ah, the "backwards comptibility" card... by Richard Steiner (Score:2) Monday October 31, @05:47PMRe:Allow me to be the first to say... by iabervon (Score:2) Monday October 31, @01:31PMRe:Allow me to be the first to say... by Beyond_GoodandEvil (Score:1) Monday October 31, @06:44PM Re:Allow me to be the first to say... (Score:5, Informative) by WWWWolf (2428) <wwwwolf@iki.fi> on Monday October 31, @06:00AM (#13913771) (http://www.iki.fi/wwwwolf/) (Who was it who said: 'Those who don't know UNIX are condemned to recreate it. Badly.' ?)$ fortune -m 'condemned' ... Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. -- Henry Spencer And those who don't understand fortune(1) are condemned to ask about quotes =) [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Allow me to be the first to say... by masklinn (Score:1) Monday October 31, @08:29AMRe:Allow me to be the first to say... by JourneymanMereel (Score:2) Monday October 31, @09:50AMRe:Allow me to be the first to say... by fatcatman (Score:2) Monday October 31, @12:26PMRe:Allow me to be the first to say... by WWWWolf (Score:1) Monday October 31, @03:26PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Allow me to be the first to say... by DeBeuk (Score:1) Monday October 31, @06:08AMRe:Allow me to be the first to say... by zaguar (Score:1) Monday October 31, @07:06AMRe:Allow me to be the first to say... by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Monday October 31, @08:00AMRe:Allow me to be the first to say... by kokoloko (Score:1) Monday October 31, @11:12AMRe:Allow me to be the first to say... by BladeMelbourne (Score:1) Monday October 31, @05:53AMRe:Allow me to be the first to say... by geminidomino (Score:2) Monday October 31, @06:15AMRe:Allow me to be the first to say... by PakProtector (Score:2) Monday October 31, @06:17AMRe:Allow me to be the first to say... by samjam (Score:2) Monday October 31, @07:26AMRe:Allow me to be the first to say... by PakProtector (Score:2) Monday October 31, @07:34AMRe:Allow me to be the first to say... by samjam (Score:2) Monday October 31, @07:55AMRe:Allow me to be the first to say... by PakProtector (Score:2) Monday October 31, @09:02AMRe:Allow me to be the first to say... by samjam (Score:2) Monday October 31, @09:18AMRe:Allow me to be the first to say... by anothy (Score:1) Monday October 31, @11:10AMRe:Allow me to be the first to say... by samjam (Score:2) Monday October 31, @02:45PM2 replies beneath your current threshold.OMG by Mateito (Score:2) Monday October 31, @05:41AMRe:OMG by islev (Score:1) Monday October 31, @05:46AMObligatory quote by OscarBlock (Score:3) Monday October 31, @05:42AMIt's worse by Anonymous Coward (Score:3) Monday October 31, @06:07AMWait, it gets worse by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Monday October 31, @06:37AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Obligatory quote by zaguar (Score:1) Monday October 31, @07:13AMRe:Obligatory quote by waamaral (Score:1) Monday October 31, @08:17AMRe:Obligatory quote by Breakfast Pants (Score:2) Monday October 31, @08:27AMRe:Obligatory quote by EnderWiggin99 (Score:1) Monday October 31, @10:17AMRe:Obligatory quote by ediron2 (Score:2) Monday October 31, @03:24PMOh, No. by Burz (Score:2) Monday October 31, @10:19AM Different than shortcuts (Score:5, Informative) by 246o1 (914193) on Monday October 31, @05:42AM (#13913708) From TFA, before it gets slashdotted and someone asks: Well, a shortcut will only work when used from within the Windows shell, it is a construct of the shell, and other apps don't understand short-cuts. To other apps, short-cuts look just like a file. With symbolic links, this concept is taken and is implemented within the file system. Apps when they open a symbolic link will now open the target by default (i.e. what the link points to), unless they explicitly ask for the symbolic link itself to be opened. [ Reply to ThisRe:Different than shortcuts by fbjon (Score:2) Monday October 31, @08:55AMRe:Different than shortcuts by quantum bit (Score:2) Monday October 31, @09:07AMOnly on BSD and Linux... you want readlink. by Ayanami Rei (Score:3) Monday October 31, @09:36AMRe:Different than shortcuts by bcmm (Score:2) Monday October 31, @09:14AMRe:Different than shortcuts by interiot (Score:3) Monday October 31, @09:27AMRe:Different than shortcuts by Otter (Score:2) Monday October 31, @09:44AMRe:Different than shortcuts by interiot (Score:2) Monday October 31, @10:18AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Different than shortcuts by HydrusZ (Score:1) Monday October 31, @09:53AMRe:Different than shortcuts by bcmm (Score:2) Monday October 31, @10:08AMAn application by Digz (Score:1) Monday October 31, @09:51AMRe:Organizational dissonance by ckaminski (Score:2) Monday October 31, @12:57PM3 replies beneath your current threshold.