> This change seems unorthogonal. `ls -Li' should've been used
> if the inode of the pointed to file was wanted.  Looks like
> 4.4 designers want to take away the `filehood' of a symlink.
> Why?  So as to store the link data in the parent directory's
> data blocks?  Sigh....

(1) because "file-ness" of a symlink is in no way required, and
(2) because an alternative, better file system design may implement
	them as part of the parent directory's structure.

I'm not arguing for or against this reasoning, i'm just stating the
reasoning.  I'm too busy right now to argue.  8-)


chris