Should find traverse symbolic links?

[Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR]

As quoted from <124715 at uunet.UU.NET> by rbj at uunet.UU.NET (Root Boy Jim):
+---------------
| In article <1991Mar3.003300.23940 at NCoast.ORG> allbery at ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR) writes:
| >The Altos systems at work (aside from the 5000, which runs SCO Pseudnix and
| >therefore doesn't have symlinks... d*mmit) have a "find" which understands the
| >"-nosym" option.  It prevents traversal of symlinks --- the opposite of what
| >you're asking for.
| 
| This is just plain wrong. Worse, it's dangerous.
| What next, follow symlinks on rm -f?
| 
| Brandon, you are a glutton for punishment.
+---------------

No, Altos is.  I haven't decided yet which I prefer.  But 90% of my find's do
want to follow the symlinks... this probably depends on how one uses them.

Understand that Altos hacked symlinks in after the fact, originally intended
for their WorkNet setup.  But insofar as I'm concerned, symlinks are a kluge
anyway:  a useful kluge, but a kluge nonetheless.  Unfortunately, I don't have
the faintest idea what to replace them with.

++Brandon
-- 
Me: Brandon S. Allbery			    Ham: KB8JRR on 40m, 10m when time
Internet: allbery at NCoast.ORG		      permits; also 2m, 220, 440, 1200
America OnLine: KB8JRR // Delphi: ALLBERY   AMPR: kb8jrr.AmPR.ORG [44.70.4.88]
uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery          KB8JRR @ WA8BXN.OH