Re: PROPOSAL for FHS: Mount points for CDs, floppies and alien OS partitions.
On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > Nobody I know in the modern Unix world uses /mnt that way
> >
[Thorsten Kukuk had written:]
> > Mabe not you. But I know a lot who uses it this way. And I
> > know a lot of installation instructions from commercial
Try OSF/1, Digital UNIX, Tru64 Unix, whatever they're calling it now.
Note that both SuSE and Tru64 use /sbin/init.d, as well...
I'm biased, having worked at Digital/Compaq, but I like that
setup. Then again, I also used to like 's:startup-sequence'
from a completely different OS. Different area, same issue (for me):
user preferences.
> And I have a pile of Linux books that say to use /mnt/cdrom. I have Linux
> packages that say /mnt/cdrom ...
Are they perchance Redhat-specific, or specific to Redhat derivatives,
despite their titles? Just curious, since I haven't examined the most
recent crop of books.
> > Where is the difference ? /mnt/foo is harder to find then a link
> > /foo to -> /mnt.d/foo. That's all I can see.
Agreed. /foo is much easier, from a workstation user's perspective, to
deal with. /mnt.d isn't a wonderful thing to type, so I tend to
favor the messages suggesting other names (/mount, /mounts, and so forth).
I've even kludged (personal) systems so that /cdrom was the mountpoint,
and /mnt/cdrom was a softlink to it: "mount /cdrom" is faster and easier
to type. [With, of course, corresponding /etc/fstab edits.]
> Mounts should be by _volume_name_ or handy label not by device.
Hmmm, do we then have /mnt/null for unnamed/unlabeled media?
Fall back on the device type and/or name? Or what?
> Another common location for remote mounts is /export/machinename/...
This is especially true of large, multi-user systems with lots
of NFS activity and/or a running automounter. Or
/wherever/share/mnt/machinename, or however a company's sysadmins have
decided to set it up. But as you mention, this is a remote-mount
issue. Shouldn't that be handled differently than local mounts?
-- John
Reply to: