On Mon, 2024-11-25 at 17:59 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 10:07:35AM -0500, e...@gmx.us wrote: > > On 11/25/24 02:26, George at Clug wrote: > > > I would create a folder into which to mount the HD's relevant > > > partition, then used "blkid" to find the UUID and manually added > > > a > > > mount point to "/etc/fstab". The resulting paths may be a bit > > > ugly, > > > but I am lazy. > > > > I find PARTLABELs to be a lot more human-friendly than UUIDs. > > As Felix pointed out in this thread, you're possibly talking about > (file system) LABELS. The idea of UUIDs is that they are "unique", > so you can run two OS installs automatically without the disk IDs > colliding. We leave the collision probability of UUIDs as an exercise > for the reader. Suffice it to say that the probability of /very > weird/ things happening (let alone an alpha particle flipping a few > bits in your RAM) is higher than a UUID collision. > > A label is something you come up to slap onto something. So using > the same label is most of the time intended. > > Of course, this UUID uniqueness thing starts looking ever more > flimsy once you start bit-copying file systems (people do this! > I know I do!). > > Civilised file systems have a slot for each, so you can use both > of them, at the same time, for different purposes. > > Cheers
-------------------- Thomas, would you mind elaborating on, or give a link to an explanation of: "Of course, this UUID uniqueness thing starts looking ever more flimsy once you start bit-copying file systems . . . " I'm not sure I understand what bit-copying of file systems is, and why it would be flimsy.
