(Forgot to append "Reply All") Jeff,
Having a /media directory in root directory is not technically causing any problem. So will moving /home/bob to /bob and /home/alice to /alice. It is just a question of what categories/hierarchies should be listed in the root directory. They're all parent and is distinguishable from each other. /media and /mnt doesn't seem differ from each other. But you've raised a point about the potential problem that a user or a system may get confused with mounting a device and file. (and hence a reason for separating it). I've mounted some files onto /media and I wasn't aware its intention was for system to use. So, I guess that is still a problem? We understand that it's not "technically" a problem but it's an ugliness and a cleanliness in architecture that a sysadmins may have created in both /media and /mnt. I think to make a world a better place, just simply put /media in /mnt. /mnt/file/(winxp,distro, img01) /mnt/dev/(cdrom, dvd, floppy, usb) On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 5:04 AM, Billy Bones <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, just to add a quick observation additionally to what Jeff said, > sometimes, sysadmins (and company by extension) have to stick with /media > and /mnt because of legacy software which are most of time homemade > business applications managed by middleware ESB/ETL/etc which handle > workflow from those old applications and the rest of the company. > > Where I agree with you Tyler is that fundamentaly, /media and /mnt should > no longer cohexists, we should choose between one of them definitively and > let the sysadmins and company create the missing one manually as all linux > sysadmins know how to do that. > > Jeff, one side question by the way, is there a form to submit ideas on FHS > Improvement or should I send my idea on this ML? > > 2014-10-07 18:53 GMT+02:00 Jeff Licquia <[email protected]>: > >> First of all, sorry for taking so long to reply. Your message went into >> moderation, and I just now noticed it. >> >> On 09/16/2014 09:00 PM, Tyler Graf wrote: >> > So, here's my question, >> > Why can't all the mount point in root directory changed to >> > /mnt/temporary & /mnt/removable? >> > >> > In the rule, it said that the reason /media & /mnt existed is because >> > they work differently and that /mnt is a mount point for temporarily >> > mounted filesystem and /media is a mount point for removable media. >> >> The main reason for /media as a separate hierarchy than /mnt is >> historical. /mnt has existed for many years, and even predates Linux. >> Many sysadmins are accustomed to "owning" /mnt (meaning they can mount >> stuff there manually, create subdirectories, etc., all at their own whim). >> >> The use case for /media, OTOH, is for it to be managed automatically by >> software that probably can't understand or anticipate the arbitrary >> decisions made by sysadmins. Yes, sysadmins could learn differently, >> but if we can avoid potential problems with a separate hierarchy, why not? >> >> It might be more interesting to understand why you want to get rid of >> /media. Is it causing you problems? >> >> -- >> Jeff Licquia >> The Linux Foundation >> +1 (317) 915-7441 >> [email protected] >> >> Linux Foundation Events Schedule: events.linuxfoundation.org >> Linux Foundation Training Schedule: training.linuxfoundation.org >> _______________________________________________ >> fhs-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/fhs-discuss >> > >
_______________________________________________ fhs-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/fhs-discuss
