On Sat, Apr 03, 2004 at 11:38:26AM +0200, Kai Blin wrote: > On Friday 02 April 2004 21:41, Jesse Keating wrote: > > > Alleged. Thats just it. I haven't ran across anybody who uses Linux > > that uses /mnt as a mountpoint. Everybody I've talked to and worked > > with will create their own temp dir under /mnt and mount things there. > > Fearing to warm up the old discussion, A quick look at some of the Linux > kernel Documentation/ directory reveals that most examples assume you're > using /mnt as a single mountpoint. Not that I think you should do it that > way, but I think that shows it's not too unusual. Agreed, RedHat didn't, but > a lot of other distros seem to do it that way. Red Hat has an empty directory called "/mnt" and some people use it to mount single further fs, some add further subdirs to mount more media. By changing from "/mnt" to "/media" you have the same setup and anyone can choose to use it how they like. As Alan Cox said, some might choose to always mount their mp3 files to /media. FHS helps a lot to set common rules for applications and standardize them, it won't be able to educate all users or tell them how to use their distribution. Maybe "/srv" has more items on the cons side. What does debian and gentoo do on that side? greetings, Florian La Roche
