On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:44:43 -0700 Gregory Nowak <g...@gregn.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 02:35:39PM -0500, Steve Litt wrote: > > > (Why /mnt ?) > > > > Tradition. It exists on all distros I've ever seen, and it's used > > for mountpoints. Do you think the more modern, file > > manager-centric /media would be a better choice? That would be no > > more difficult. > > Here's another good reason: /mnt is quicker and easier to repeatedly > type than /media. I'd say mount as /mnt/sdd1, /mnt/sdd2, ... Just my > $0.01 worth. > > Greg Thanks Greg, /mnt/sdd1 and /mnt/sdd2 would be incredibly easy to implement: I could have it done within an hour. The only thing stopping me is that /mnt/sdd1 and /mnt/sdd2 say nothing about which physical thumb drive it refers to. And at different times under different conditions, the same physical thumb drive could be /mnt/sdd once, and /mnt/sde another time. Naming after the id could conceivably lessen such confusion. On the other hand, /mnt/usb-LEXAR_JD_Secure_II_+_106A1D05221649250807-0:0-part1 and /mnt/usb-LEXAR_JD_Secure_II_+_106A1D05221649250807-0:0-part1 would be a lot more to type in, and if there were two similar Lexar thumb drives plugged in at the same time, it would be more confusing than The more I answer your post, the more convinced I get that you're right. SteveT _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
