Andreas Jellinghaus wrote: > > since it will be "new" for most users, it shoudnt be a cryptic name. > "mnt.d" is cryptic in my optinion /mount or /disks should be fine.
I agree that it shouldn't be cryptic, but I disagree that it should be targeted at new users. I prefer something like (go with me on the links to devs ok :) /vol/fd0 --> /dev/fd0 /vol/hdf --> /dev/hdf (cdrom) /vol/cdrom --> /vol/hdf /home/USER/floppy --> /vol/fd0 /home/USER/cdrom --> /vol/cdrom OR /vol/hdf This is just to get around the usability issue, I'm not saying use /vol for the magic directory (or vice versa). Also i'm easy on the exact positioning within the user's home directory (having this or not is definately a distribution decision not a recommendation for a standard). But I do feel that users should be navigating from their home directory, not from root which really holds OS stuff. IMO :) Personally I feel that the actual names of the mount points are irrelavant. If software relies on its installation media being in a certain place then it's badly written - it probably inherently relies on the type of media as well. Defining the mount point eg. /vol or /mnt or /ext(ernal) makes sence for system tidyness, best practice, kind of stuff. But that should be the only reason. Cheers, Daniel Bradley.
