FHS 2.3 apparently. They appear to serve mostly the same purpose, but /mnt is specified as "temporarily mounted filesystems" while /media is specified as just "removable media".
Regardless, since the implementation of /media, automounters have tended to mount stuff there, while things manually mounted have tended to be mounted in /mnt, presumably avoiding conflict between what the administrator wants to do and what the automounter wants to do - which is a good precedent to follow IMHO. On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Arnt Karlsen <a...@iaksess.no> wrote: > On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:44:43 -0700, Gregory wrote in message > <20151225194443.ga2...@gregn.net>: > > > 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 > > ..where did the "/media tradition" come from anyway? > > -- > ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen > ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... > Scenarios always come in sets of three: > best case, worst case, and just in case. > _______________________________________________ > Dng mailing list > Dng@lists.dyne.org > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng >
_______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
