«

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 23:23:23 +1200, someone purporting to be Bling-Bling
didst scrawl:

> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 23:07:32 +1200, Matthew Poole wrote:
>
>> It's not that far different from *nix forcing you to mount stuff under /,
>> it's just that Windows uses C: to the same effect.
>
> How often have you experienced an occasion when you'd been forced to
> mount something directly into the / directory?
>
Other than the stuff that's in there as part of the system's existence
(/usr, /var, /home and /tmp are all separate partitions on any FreeBSD
box I build), I've also shifted FreeBSD's default location of /cdrom0 and
/cdrom1 into /mnt since it tidies things up when I add mount-points for my
camera and my USB card reader. I _could_ have left them all in / and it
wouldn't have mattered.

--
Matthew Poole
"Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 10:11:15 +1200, someone purporting to be Bling-Bling
didst scrawl:

> On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 10:08:13 +1200, Shane wrote:
>
*SNIP*
>> cd /
>> ls
>> bin mnt proc etal are all sub directorys of root and /mnt/cdrom is a sub
>> directory of mnt so all filesystems are mounted relative to root you cant
>> have.. for example.. two roots / one on hda and one on hdb
>
> If course now I see - I should have finished that sentence - "...choice of
> being able to put it where ever you want it to go within the directory
> tree." Of *course* everything is inside the one / directory!
>
How is Windows' C: any different to *nix's /? There's no difference that
I can see. I theory you can get Windows to even mount your removable media
into directories, though I wouldn't want to try it given how confused it
gets about drive letters for things.

--
Matthew Poole
"Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."

Matthew Poole wrote:
> I've no idea how you'd do it on the command line, but through the Computer
> Manager you format the partition then choose where to mount it, and the
> mount point can be a directory on an existing drive or it can be a new
> drive.
> It's not that far different from *nix forcing you to mount stuff under /,
> it's just that Windows uses C: to the same effect.

Yep it all works pretty much the same. But there are a few wrinkles to
be aware of or work around - eg I don't think Volume Shadow Copy will
work across the mount point.

Also if you move a file across the mount point it is actually changing
filesystems, so will inherit permissions from the new filesystem rather
than keeping it's old ones. This is just similar to the usual
differences between moving a file within and outside of its original
filesystem. It's just that it isn't as easy to recognise when you are
doing it.

Usually no problem if you're aware of it.

--
Cheers
Anton

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 10:25:03 +1200, Matthew Poole wrote:

>> How often have you experienced an occasion when you'd been forced to
>> mount something directly into the / directory?
>>
> Other than the stuff that's in there as part of the system's existence
> (/usr, /var, /home and /tmp are all separate partitions on any FreeBSD
> box I build),

Cool.

I mount /boot /var and /usr/home as separate partitions, as well as swap
and / partitions on my FreeBSD box.


> I've also shifted FreeBSD's default location of /cdrom0
> and /cdrom1 into /mnt since it tidies things up when I add mount-points
> for my camera and my USB card reader. I _could_ have left them all in /
> and it wouldn't have mattered.

True, but it does make logical sense to have all user mountable devices
mounted under /mnt .


Bling Bling

--
IBM: "Linux is not just another operating system. It represents a
collaboration of the best programmers in the industry coming together to
create an operating system that works on any hardware platform."

Bling-Bling wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 23:07:32 +1200, Matthew Poole wrote:
>
>
>>It's not that far different from *nix forcing you to mount stuff under /,
>>it's just that Windows uses C: to the same effect.
>
>
> How often have you experienced an occasion when you'd been forced to
> mount something directly into the / directory?

He meant unix forces you to have a single tree for your filesystems, not
that you can only mount things directly under the / directory.

--
Cheers
Anton

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 10:27:19 +1200, Matthew Poole wrote:

>> If course now I see - I should have finished that sentence - "...choice
>> of being able to put it where ever you want it to go within the
>> directory tree." Of *course* everything is inside the one / directory!
>>
> How is Windows' C: any different to *nix's /? There's no difference that
> I can see.

You don't need to install programmes within the C: partition. You can put
them wherever you want - at least you can *try* to do that, with variable
success depending on how well thought trough the installer ap was
configured.

You don't need to have the Windows Swap File located in the /WINDOWS
directory - you can configure Windoze to put it anywhere on any partition
on any HDD.


> I theory you can get Windows to even mount your removable media
> into directories, though I wouldn't want to try it given how confused it
> gets about drive letters for things.

There is a difference between what is theoretically possible and what is
practical and reliable.


Bling Bling

--
IBM: "Linux is not just another operating system. It represents a
collaboration of the best programmers in the industry coming together to
create an operating system that works on any hardware platform."

Bling-Bling wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 10:25:03 +1200, Matthew Poole wrote:
>
>
>>>How often have you experienced an occasion when you'd been forced to
>>>mount something directly into the / directory?
>>>
>>
>>Other than the stuff that's in there as part of the system's existence
>>(/usr, /var, /home and /tmp are all separate partitions on any FreeBSD
>>box I build),
>
>
> Cool.
>
> I mount /boot /var and /usr/home as separate partitions, as well as swap
> and / partitions on my FreeBSD box.
>
>
>
>>I've also shifted FreeBSD's default location of /cdrom0
>>and /cdrom1 into /mnt since it tidies things up when I add mount-points
>>for my camera and my USB card reader. I _could_ have left them all in /
>>and it wouldn't have mattered.
>
>
> True, but it does make logical sense to have all user mountable devices
> mounted under /mnt .
>
>
> Bling Bling
>

It makes logical sense for user mountable devices to be mounted in home
directories if you are running a multi user environment

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 10:50:51 +1200, someone purporting to be shannon didst
scrawl:

> Bling-Bling wrote:
*SNIP*
> It makes logical sense for user mountable devices to be mounted in home
> directories if you are running a multi user environment
Whose home directory? If you're sharing a CD across the entire system it
makes sense for it to be shared globally.
It's incredibly rare to have a multi-user system with more than one person
actually using the terminal itself. If you've got shared resources, it's
usually a server, and in that situation people are accessing it from a
workstation that has the ability to mount CDs and USB memory devices
locally.

--
Matthew Poole
"Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."

In article <3yoqe.6448$>,
"AD." <> wrote:

>Matthew Poole wrote:
>> I've no idea how you'd do it on the command line, but through the Computer
>> Manager you format the partition then choose where to mount it, and the
>> mount point can be a directory on an existing drive or it can be a new
>> drive.
>> It's not that far different from *nix forcing you to mount stuff under /,
>> it's just that Windows uses C: to the same effect.
>
>Yep it all works pretty much the same. But there are a few wrinkles to
>be aware of or work around - eg I don't think Volume Shadow Copy will
>work across the mount point.

Can you stack mount points more than 2 deep?

>Also if you move a file across the mount point it is actually changing
>filesystems, so will inherit permissions from the new filesystem rather
>than keeping it's old ones. This is just similar to the usual
>differences between moving a file within and outside of its original
>filesystem. It's just that it isn't as easy to recognise when you are
>doing it.

On *nix systems, "cp -a" means preserve modification dates, protections,
even file ownership if possible. And that works both within and across
filesystems. The "mv" command does this as a matter of course when
moving a file between filesystems.

In article <42aa1948$>, shannon <> wrote:

>It makes logical sense for user mountable devices to be mounted in home
>directories if you are running a multi user environment

Not necessarily. You might be sharing the device among multiple users.