On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 19:34 +0800, Chong Yu Meng wrote: > 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. /mnt is where you'd want to put more permanent mounts. /media was really created as a place for udev to mount removable media (CDs, DVDs, FLASH drives, cameras, ZIP drives, etc.) on the fly--hence the name "/media". ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Rick Stevens, Senior Systems Engineer rstevens@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx - - VitalStream, Inc. http://www.vitalstream.com - - - - The light at the end of the tunnel is really an oncoming train. - ----------------------------------------------------------------------
