Interestingly, relative symbolic links can’t cross volumes, which kind of makes sense (“Relative symbolic links are restricted to a single volume.”) - volumes are namespaced anyways, so if you know you need to access another one, using an absolute symlink makes more sense.
Yeah, junctions would be most similar to a mount point. Though you can also mount one directory under another, so it’s more like a directory hardlink in that case.
And symlinks were actually introduced in Vista, but for some reason you needed to be an Admin to create one. With Win10 they removed that restriction, but for some reason kept it behind a “developer mode” anyway, it’s strange.
Junctions aren’t really the equivalent to symbolic links from my understanding because:
Symbolic links do actually exist: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/fileio/creating-symbolic-links
Interestingly, relative symbolic links can’t cross volumes, which kind of makes sense (“Relative symbolic links are restricted to a single volume.”) - volumes are namespaced anyways, so if you know you need to access another one, using an absolute symlink makes more sense.
Yeah, junctions would be most similar to a mount point. Though you can also mount one directory under another, so it’s more like a directory hardlink in that case.
And symlinks were actually introduced in Vista, but for some reason you needed to be an Admin to create one. With Win10 they removed that restriction, but for some reason kept it behind a “developer mode” anyway, it’s strange.
It sounds a lot like a bind mount at filesystem level
Yes, thank you! I knew there was something like it on the *nix side, but the only thing that was coming to mind was overlayfs, which ain’t it.