On Fri, 2004-04-02 at 21:40, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 12:03:16PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > Well, let people in the know argue for /media if they want it. So far no
> > one here seems to have understood what it's supposed to win over /mnt.
>
> The FHS actually gives the rationalization: having mount points as
> subdirectories under /mnt conflicts with an allegedly widespread practice of
> using /mnt itself as a temporary mountpoint.
"/mnt, the one singular temporary mount point you'll ever need", if they
really say that, I'll withhold my opinion about their way of thoughts.
Nils
--
Nils Philippsen / Red Hat / nphilipp@xxxxxxxxxx
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- B. Franklin, 1759
PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011
