Symbolic Links Help

Lets say for example that I have a directory in my home folder that contains a program. Now I want to be able to launch this program from a terminal by just typing the program name. Am I right in assuming that I would need an executable or symbolic link in one of the bin folders - like /usr/bin?

How would I create a symbolic link from the program in my home folder, to the /usr/bin folder?

 

If it's in your home folder, ~/bin/ is usually in your path anyway. Just put the symlinks there.

 

Ok, but how do I make symbolic links in the terminal?

 

Here's an example. If I wanted to make a symbolic link from my custom firefox installation in /usr/local/apps/firefox to my /usr/local/bin so that it'd be in my path, it'd be like this:

Code:

ln -s /usr/local/apps/firefox/firefox /usr/local/bin/

 

Thanks AT.

Easy

Another question for you

How do I add directories into my PATH?

 

For your local account, assuming you are using BASH, edit your ~/.bash_profile:

Code:

# .bash_profile

# Get the aliases and functions
if [ -f ~/.bashrc ]; then
        . ~/.bashrc
fi

# User specific environment and startup programs

PATH=$PATH:$HOME/bin
[COLOR="Red"]PATH1=$PATH:/someplace/else/[/COLOR]

export PATH
[COLOR="Red"]export PATH1[/COLOR]
unset USERNAME

 

Hmm. I don't seem to have a bash_profile file. The only thing referring to BASH is bash_history.

I don't have a ~/bin/ directory either!

 

Make one. BTW, it's .bash_profile ...don't forget the leading period.

Make one.

 

Will do

Isn't there a command that exports a PATH as well?

something like 'EXPORT=/path/to/directory ?

 

That's exactly what the ~/.bash_profile is doing.

 

[ot] I feel much more comfortable with Linux these days. I've got past the initial FUD that most new users go through. Running Linux exclusively has helped a great deal. I've forced myself to learn Linux whether I like it or not Now that i've reached the honeymoon stage, I just can't understand why people would want to use Windows. [/ot]

 

[ot]Okay, this is off-topic..

I've just finished install Xubuntu on an old Celeron 500MHz box. Usually I would change the kernel to 686 or something. But a Celeron of this age is not 686 compatible.

I did a search for a 486 kernel but couldn't find anything. Do you think the default 386 kernel is all I can use?[/ot]

 

[ot]

Yeah, Linux isn't as complicated as it seems from the outside. I feel confident that if I have a probem with a Linux system I can fix it without a destructive reinstall -- I don't feel that way about Windows at all. As far as useability and productivity, I'd put KDE or Xfce miles ahead of Windows. And I think any idiot can see that the security is worlds better and the value can't be beat.[/ot]

 

[ot]

You can always build your own kernel from source, it's not very difficult. On my workstations, I always build my own kernels for performance.

Of course, if it's a P2-based Celly, you can use an i586 kernel, and if it's a P3-based celly you can indeed use an i686 kernel.[/ot]

 

[ot] Yup, agreed.

Y'know the desktop wallpaper picture on my work's computer is TUX! I've had several people come up to me with a puzzled look their face, asking me what my fascination with penguins is I go on to tell them that it represents Linux and give them a CD (I always carry a Ubuntu CD with me ) but it's futile! They don't even bother running it, despite the Live CD that's included in the Ubuntu CD pack. [/ot]

 

[ot]it's a P2 Celeron, so i'll try the i586 kernel. Although when I searched the ubuntu repositories, I only found the 386 and 686 kernels. I'll have another look later. [/ot]

 

[ot]

You know, the newer Ubuntu family has consolidated the install discs and the live disc into one. It's much better. In fact, I like Xubuntu 6.06 so much I'd consider running it on some systems if only it wasn't for the STUPID sudoers faux pas. If they reform that, I'll recommend it a lot more than I currently do. Mandriva isn't perfect either, as it requires a little work to be the ideal desktop. Even so, it's quite secure out-of-the-box, and it even has a "paranoid" security setting intended for servers that locks the box down in a big way. If only it didn't have some stupid programs, *cough*Kat!*cough*Totem!*cough*, installed by default, and did have some repositories installed by default, I'd in good conscience recommend it above all other distros for nearly every purpose. [/ot]

 

[ot]

i386 usually just means "generic x86 compatible", so if it's compiled right, you'll still get things like MMX, SSE, etc. That's how Red Hat handles it. Still, if you can find an i586 kernel, or build your own optimised for a P2, it'll perform better for you.[/ot]

 

[ot] The default root policy in *ubuntu is retarded, but it's easily fixed. I can kind of understand why the developers choose to do it. But it's not difficult to remember two passwords.

I'd recommend SuSE to new users because it is easy to use. The documentation is great and the eyecandy is nice. However, the more I learned about Linux, the more I realised just how inefficient SuSE is. [/ot]

 

Is compiling a kernel as simple as ./configure > make > make install? [/ot]