[CLUE-Tech] Question on mounting a new scsi drive

[Jed S. Baer]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 15:46:00 -0600
David Anselmi <anselmi at americanisp.net> wrote:

> Jed S. Baer wrote:
> [...]
> > Actually, I still think this is just a little wierd. I mean, it makes
> > sense that there has to be a directory entry in / (or wherever) for
> > the mount point. But it would be nifty if it were flagged as a "mount
> > point" entry, instead of being a real directory. 
> 
> The wierd part (for beginners) is that the directory permissions change 
> depending what's mounted there.  But it makes sense when you get used to
> it.
> 
> Why would you like a "mount point" file type?  How would it be different
> 
> than a directory?  Other than to remind you to mount things there rather
> 
> than store files there (which you can achieve by naming it something 
> like... I don't know, /mnt).  <g>

Oh, I suppose it doesn't matter a lot anymore, but that directory sitting
there doing nothing but essentially being a placeholder for a filesystem
takes up 4096 bytes. It seems like needless waste. Whereas an entry
specifically intended for mount points could be just an entry in the
directory itself, much like a symbolic link. I just like things to be all
neat and tidy.

And don't tell me symbolic links take up 4K too, I'll be crushed. ;-)

Of course, there's the possible humor value in the following command:

  # touch /mnt/cdrom/there_no_disk_there_now.txt

or somesuch.

jed
-- 
... it is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday
facilitate a police state. -- Bruce Schneier