Re: Why /floppy -- why not /mnt/fd or something?

1998-01-16 Thread Peter Prohaska
On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, David Wright wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Daniel Martin at cush wrote: > > > Peter Prohaska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > why `/dev/fd*'s are mounted at /floppy. > > > When reading fsstnd, you would expect them to be mounted in > > > /mnt/someting. Since /floppy i

RE: Why /floppy -- why not /mnt/fd or something?

1998-01-16 Thread Peter Prohaska
On Thu, 15 Jan 1998, Ted Harding wrote: > It's whatever suits your taste. I have directories /A: /C: and /D: for > mounting > msdos floppy & partitions on: helps the DOSsers to feels at home! (and yes, > the > colon is part of the name). Put entries in /etc/fstab, a floppy in the drive, > and pe

Re: Why /floppy -- why not /mnt/fd or something?

1998-01-15 Thread David Wright
On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Daniel Martin at cush wrote: > Peter Prohaska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > why `/dev/fd*'s are mounted at /floppy. > > When reading fsstnd, you would expect them to be mounted in > > /mnt/someting. Since /floppy is neither one of those un*x shorties nor > > used during

Re: Why /floppy -- why not /mnt/fd or something?

1998-01-15 Thread Erik Walthinsen
> > why `/dev/fd*'s are mounted at /floppy. > I think it is a matter of convenience and tradition. Personally, I use /fd0, /fd1, etc. The RedHat method (/mnt/floppy) seems less than useful to me. The reason for this is that I always use /mnt for what it's designed for: temporary mounts. Put

Re: Why /floppy -- why not /mnt/fd or something?

1998-01-15 Thread Sten Anderson
Peter Prohaska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi all! > > Please dont flamme me for that unimportant question. But I was wondering, > why `/dev/fd*'s are mounted at /floppy. > When reading fsstnd, you would expect them to be mounted in > /mnt/someting. Since /floppy is neither one of those un*x

RE: Why /floppy -- why not /mnt/fd or something?

1998-01-15 Thread Ted Harding
On 14-Jan-98 Peter Prohaska wrote: > > Hi all! > > Please dont flamme me for that unimportant question. But I was wondering, > why `/dev/fd*'s are mounted at /floppy. > When reading fsstnd, you would expect them to be mounted in > /mnt/someting. Since /floppy is neither one of those un*x short

Re: Why /floppy -- why not /mnt/fd or something?

1998-01-15 Thread Daniel Martin at cush
Peter Prohaska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi all! > > Please dont flamme me for that unimportant question. But I was wondering, > why `/dev/fd*'s are mounted at /floppy. > When reading fsstnd, you would expect them to be mounted in > /mnt/someting. Since /floppy is neither one of those un*x

Why /floppy -- why not /mnt/fd or something?

1998-01-14 Thread Peter Prohaska
Hi all! Please dont flamme me for that unimportant question. But I was wondering, why `/dev/fd*'s are mounted at /floppy. When reading fsstnd, you would expect them to be mounted in /mnt/someting. Since /floppy is neither one of those un*x shorties nor used during installation I can't see why i