On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 10:49 +0100, Karsten Fischer wrote: > Why should you? I am pretty comfortable with that right now; but then I > also use a Mac, where this kind of mounting seems to be quite normal and > does not cause trouble. Anyway, a mount with the name like "Doom 4 for > Linux Disk 2 of 2" sounds much more descriptive than "cdrom", now does > it? > ;) Except when you want to use command line. The GUI (Nautilus) worked pretty good for normal users (displaying the volume name under the icon) previously without the need for such mount point names. -- Tomas Mraz <tmraz@xxxxxxxxxx>
Well put. But then, how about having both? Lets say there would exist a subdirectory within '/media' called devices, in which all devices have their proper names? On the other hand, it might be a bit complicated, granted.
I really don't get your point - why shouldn't I use something like 'ls /media/Doom_for_Linux' instead of 'ls /media/cdrom'? If somebody does create an application which is shipped on CD why should the aforementioned installer fail (like posted in the post earlier)? This behaviour is completely consistent with Fedora's boot-process (ahem, within grub, of course), where, instead of an device like '/dev/sda' the root-device is identified using its label, adding a lot of flexibility (or, could add, since grub itself needs its own device-map, hope it can get rid of it :)
I agree that for now this is an issue - but I personally think things should shift towards using descriptive names for mount points, even on the command line. If somebody sees 'Doom for Linux' in the GUI, it makes searching for that specific CD easier even on the command line in the end, especially if you have - like i do - a couple of different CD/DVD devices attached to your box, most of them via FireWire or USB2...
--
Karsten Fischer
-- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list