CDs mount to volume name
kfischer at bfki.net
Fri Feb 10 10:01:38 UTC 2006
Am Donnerstag, den 09.02.2006, 09:14 -0700 schrieb Michal Jaegermann:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 10:03:33AM +0100, Karsten Fischer wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, den 08.02.2006, 17:04 -0700 schrieb Michal Jaegermann:
> > >
> > > Specific examples, please. Or you have to be kidding.
> > Easily. I put in a media called "Tax2005" and its is mounted
> > on /media/Tax2005, regardless of which drive
> > (DVD-ROM,CD-ROM,DVD/CD-Writer, CD-Writer) I use.
> In other words depending on which CD, and in which order you stuck
> in one of your multiple drives (volume labels are far from unique)
> you are looking for your data in different places in a directory
> treee. Extreme consistency indeed.
Really? I put in the CD "Tax2005" - let me check this, yes - and it is
mounted, every time, on every device, as /media/Tax2005. So instead of
looking in /media/cdrecorder0 or /media/cdrecorder1 I look
> On the top of that many people told you about other very undesirable
> effects while, if you are using only "desktop" to access your data,
> your gain is exactly none.
Haven't said anything about using only the desktop. Every change in a
running system has its drawbacks. There was a discussion about
introduction of modules in the kernel quite a while ago. Since the
computer hardware didn't change so fast as it does today, some argued
that a purely monolithic kernel, no hardware modules whatsoever, would
be more stable, easier to maintain, would break some existing methods
(which it did) and so on; they flatly refused to see the advantages. But
that's a different story. The problem is to look at the pros and cons
and to find out if the gain outweighs the drawbacks. Which, in this
case, I think it does.
> > And no, I'm certainly not kidding.
> Then you did not really think about what you wish for.
I did, still do. But before you start judging my thinking, try to stay
on the topic.
More information about the test