On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Alan Cox wrote: > > > Nobody I know in the modern Unix world uses /mnt that way > > [Thorsten Kukuk had written:] > > Mabe not you. But I know a lot who uses it this way. And I > > know a lot of installation instructions from commercial
Try OSF/1, Digital UNIX, Tru64 Unix, whatever they're calling it now. Note that both SuSE and Tru64 use /sbin/init.d, as well... I'm biased, having worked at Digital/Compaq, but I like that setup. Then again, I also used to like 's:startup-sequence' from a completely different OS. Different area, same issue (for me): user preferences. > And I have a pile of Linux books that say to use /mnt/cdrom. I have Linux > packages that say /mnt/cdrom ... Are they perchance Redhat-specific, or specific to Redhat derivatives, despite their titles? Just curious, since I haven't examined the most recent crop of books. > > Where is the difference ? /mnt/foo is harder to find then a link > > /foo to -> /mnt.d/foo. That's all I can see. Agreed. /foo is much easier, from a workstation user's perspective, to deal with. /mnt.d isn't a wonderful thing to type, so I tend to favor the messages suggesting other names (/mount, /mounts, and so forth). I've even kludged (personal) systems so that /cdrom was the mountpoint, and /mnt/cdrom was a softlink to it: "mount /cdrom" is faster and easier to type. [With, of course, corresponding /etc/fstab edits.] > Mounts should be by _volume_name_ or handy label not by device. Hmmm, do we then have /mnt/null for unnamed/unlabeled media? Fall back on the device type and/or name? Or what? > Another common location for remote mounts is /export/machinename/... This is especially true of large, multi-user systems with lots of NFS activity and/or a running automounter. Or /wherever/share/mnt/machinename, or however a company's sysadmins have decided to set it up. But as you mention, this is a remote-mount issue. Shouldn't that be handled differently than local mounts? -- John
