On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 15:43 -0400, Andrew Conkling wrote: > It seems that there are a lot of automounters out there at the > moment--autofs, automount, supermount, submount, ivman--but which one > is the best to use? I know that D-BUS/HAL make for very good > handling, but do any of the kernel people have opinions on which one > to use? I'm looking for something in userspace but completely > DE-independent. I've been using ivman but it seems complicated and > hasn't been working for me. Is there something simpler I could try? > > Cheers, > Andrew
As hal/dbus maintainer, I would say HAL. I hate automounters pure because they cause data corruption and huge kernel logs. Tried submount last week, but didn't work as I wanted. The nice thing with hal/dbus is that you get mountpoints created in /media automatically for all removable devices and that it fills up fstab with those so every normal user can mount them. You're free in your choice about mounting them, you could use mount, but also tools like ivman, gnome-volume-manager or KDE's media:/ KIOSlave. _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
