[Glorfindel]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Linux being linux, there are dedicated programs for automounting, and they default to the standards-based /media -- nevertheless you can always manually use the mount command. The /mnt folder is typically used that way, and the standards list it as a place for keeping always-mounted drives on an ongoing (permanent) basis IIRC. In casual use you won't even see that folder to begin with.

I NEVER said there are distros that force you to manually mount. However, my fstab, by personal choice, mounts the Windows partition read-only there.

I do however use ArchLinux so I had to manually install an automount daemon. Most distros, including every single one a non-cli-user would install, bundle those. The heavyweight DEs bake it in.


Have you ever heard of freedesktop standards?
The word "standards" should be a clue, anyway...



Again, every popular file browser likely to be used by a non-cli-user does. Because it is a freaking obvious idea and it is mentally retarded not to.

But since we are all agreed that Windows does do that, what is your problem? Are you just being argumentative? (Don't answer that, just see below.)




Thank you for responding. You have confirmed my belief that you are being wilfully disingenuous.

When you are ready and willing to debate the issues rather than insulting someone who doesn't agree with you, I will possibly reply to your posts.

Originally Posted by BWinmill

Which distribution does that? I have seen, indeed used, such shorthands on systems where the drives were manually mounted or were configured as such by an administrator in /etc/fstab. I have only encountered /media/{disk_label} or /media/{user_name}/{disk_label} in current distributions designed for the "Technically Unsavvy".

I haven't used them recently, but the one that I use does not do that.

Originally Posted by BWinmill

Uh, no. Disks are much easier to grasp. Drive letters are a legacy of the MS-DOS era, when it was more convenient to refer to the drive. That was especially true since drives could not detect when a disk was inserted or removed. The only way to use a disk by a volume label was to poll every drive each time it was referred to. Macs of the era were able to detect when a disk was inserted and removed, so they could (and did) use the disk label.

Besides, drive letters don't make much sense these days. Unlike older systems, where the media was inserted or removed while the drives remained fixed, removing the disk usually involves removing the drive. (The main exception being SD cards on systems with an internal SD slot.)

I'm not arguing about the drive letters, I'm arguing that drive letters are easier to understand than having sda1's in two different folders. I have yet to meet a person who didn't understand drive letters.