FHS 2.3 apparently. They appear to serve mostly the same purpose, but /mnt
is specified as "temporarily mounted filesystems" while /media is specified
as just "removable media".

Regardless, since the implementation of /media, automounters have tended to
mount stuff there, while things manually mounted have tended to be mounted
in /mnt, presumably avoiding conflict between what the administrator wants
to do and what the automounter wants to do - which is a good precedent to
follow IMHO.


On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Arnt Karlsen <arnt@???> wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:44:43 -0700, Gregory wrote in message
> <20151225194443.GA2541@???>:
>
> > 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
>
> ..where did the "/media tradition" come from anyway?
>
> --
> ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen
> ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
> Scenarios always come in sets of three:
> best case, worst case, and just in case.
> _______________________________________________
> Dng mailing list
> Dng@???
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
>