On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:44:43 -0700
Gregory Nowak <greg@???> wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 02:35:39PM -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
> > > (Why /mnt ?)
> >
> > Tradition. It exists on all distros I've ever seen, and it's used
> > for mountpoints. Do you think the more modern, file
> > manager-centric /media would be a better choice? That would be no
> > more difficult.
>
> Here's another good reason: /mnt is quicker and easier to repeatedly
> type than /media. I'd say mount as /mnt/sdd1, /mnt/sdd2, ... Just my
> $0.01 worth.
>
> Greg

Thanks Greg,

/mnt/sdd1 and /mnt/sdd2 would be incredibly easy to implement: I could
have it done within an hour.

The only thing stopping me is that /mnt/sdd1 and /mnt/sdd2 say nothing
about which physical thumb drive it refers to. And at different times
under different conditions, the same physical thumb drive could
be /mnt/sdd once, and /mnt/sde another time. Naming after the id could
conceivably lessen such confusion.

On the other
hand, /mnt/usb-LEXAR_JD_Secure_II_+_106A1D05221649250807-0:0-part1
and /mnt/usb-LEXAR_JD_Secure_II_+_106A1D05221649250807-0:0-part1 would
be a lot more to type in, and if there were two similar Lexar thumb
drives plugged in at the same time, it would be more confusing than

The more I answer your post, the more convinced I get that you're right.

SteveT