On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 08:52 +0100, James Wilkinson wrote: > Chong Yu Meng wrote: > > Actually, why do you even have > > directories with data in /mnt? Although it is possible to use /mnt as a > > normal directory, I normally use it only for mount points to removable > > storage -- but, hey, whatever floats your boat. > > As I remember it, that was where all mounts went on Red Hat Linux if > they didn't fit into the normal scheme, including things like vfat > partitions shared with other OSes on the same machine. I believe that > was "suggested" by the early installers, but obviously it's been years > since I used one of them... > > Basically, you could either have all your mount-points (Debian-style) > under / (e.g. /cdrom, /win95) and use /mnt for a "scratch" mount point, > or you could have all your mount-points under /mnt (e.g. /mnt/cdrom, > /mnt/win95 and /mnt/misc). (This was before the days of /media, which as > far as I can tell was an attempt at a compromise that left /mnt free but > stopped you having too many folders directly in /). > > Googling /mnt/windows site:redhat.com gives official Red Hat > documentation (including one for RHEL 4) suggesting that this is the > place to put mount points. > > Hope this helps, Thanks ! That clears up a lot of my thinking. -- Pascal Chong email: chongym@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx web: http://cymulacrum.net pgp: http://cymulacrum.net/pgp/cymulacrum.asc "La science ne connaît pas de frontière parce que la connaissance appartient à l’humanité. et que c’est la flamme qui illumine le monde." -- Louis Pasteur
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
