This question has been raised twice on the Forum recently and advice from members has been conflicting. viewtopic.php?f=107&t=65638 & viewtopic.php?f=107&t=65638
The Manual description of the file system says that physical storage devices should be mounted at /mnt and removable devices at /media. This used to be the case in Mepis and, I think, in the early versions of MX, but there was a change some years ago and everything was mounted at /media. Thunar auto-mounts removable devices at /media and manually mounted devices at /media/user. Disk Manger mounts devices at /media and adds an entry to /etc/fstab.
Unfortunately, gnome-disk-utility in MX-21 now defaults to mounting devices at /mnt, which will give rise to increasing confusion. It seems time to make a clear statement of standard practice for MX.
/mnt or /media?
/mnt or /media?
Gigabyte B550I Aorus Pro AX, Ryzen 5 5600G, 16GB, 250GB Samsung SSD (GPT), 2x1TB HDD (MBR), MX-21-AHS
Lenovo Thinkpad X220, dual-core i5, 4MB, 120GB Samsung SSD (GPT), MX-21
Re: /mnt or /media?
That's how I know it from opensuse and mint (in 2014/2015). I also found it a bit confusing at first when I switched to MX.physical storage devices should be mounted at /mnt and removable devices at /media.
Personally, I do not care now, my additional disks, whether internal or external are mounted in my home directory.
if they change the "standards" every few years, I just make it fit for me.
my fstab is a bit bloated, but the stuff is where I expect it to be.
that can also change, but that is then my decision ;-}
example:
Code: Select all
# Pluggable devices are handled by uDev, they are not in fstab
UUID=fac314a9-6810-4282-808e-8cd967f66ec1 / ext4 defaults 0 1
UUID=29f39c82-9829-4154-b6a1-fd0d266e3125 swap swap defaults 0 0
UUID=6c7dee4d-f437-484c-a464-5cd43af45128 /home/winnI/evo850/ auto defaults 0 1
UUID=e8a2b356-9190-4636-b3a3-67cb3633997e /home/winnI/qvo/ auto defaults 0 1
UUID=3b817b12-e514-4f6b-bba8-0b50d8db3cc2 /home/winnI/EVO500/ auto defaults 0 1
UUID=452de615-811d-42cf-9033-5778384c870e /home/winnI/sea3tb/ auto defaults 0 1
UUID=2400B42F-00B4-0A36-70ae-3d644fa69d61 /home/winnI/tosh3tb/ auto defaults 0 1
UUID=c640a5f8-23ee-46d8-a2f6-08e1db09a019 /home/winnI/wd4tb/ auto defaults 0 1
my working horse Desktop AMD Ryzen 9 3900x, 32GB Ram // SSD ... enough
mx-fluxbox, what else?
In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments.
There are consequences.
my wallpaper gallery
mx-fluxbox, what else?
In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments.
There are consequences.
my wallpaper gallery
- linexer2016
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 8:15 pm
Re: /mnt or /media?
From the excellent ebook Linux Command Line (a link posted recently on this board) by William Schotts ...
/media On modern Linux systems the /media directory will contain the mount points for removable media such as USB drives, CD-ROMs, etc. that are mounted automatically at insertion
/mnt On older Linux systems, the /mnt directory contains mount points for removable devices that have been mounted manually.
/media On modern Linux systems the /media directory will contain the mount points for removable media such as USB drives, CD-ROMs, etc. that are mounted automatically at insertion
/mnt On older Linux systems, the /mnt directory contains mount points for removable devices that have been mounted manually.
- paddys-hill
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2021 12:45 am
Re: /mnt or /media?
The FSH (v3) says
and
That, IMO, is L.A.W.
regards
Code: Select all
3.12. /mnt : Mount point for a temporarily mounted filesystem
3.12.1. Purpose
This directory is provided so that the system administrator may temporarily mount a filesystem as needed. The content of this directory is a local issue and should not affect the manner in which any program is run.
This directory must not be used by installation programs: a suitable temporary directory not in use by the system must be used instead.
Code: Select all
3.11. /media : Mount point for removable media
3.11.1. Purpose
This directory contains subdirectories which are used as mount points for removable media such as floppy disks, cdroms and zip disks.
regards
Paddys-Hill Co-op co-ordinator & sysadmin
Front end: Acer Aspire A315-21G (AMD A9-9420 RADEON R5) running 5.10.0-5mx-amd64
Co-op VPN Server: HP 666161-B21 ProLiant BL460c Gen8 E5-2620 (in rebuild)
+ 6 other servers
Front end: Acer Aspire A315-21G (AMD A9-9420 RADEON R5) running 5.10.0-5mx-amd64
Co-op VPN Server: HP 666161-B21 ProLiant BL460c Gen8 E5-2620 (in rebuild)
+ 6 other servers
Re: /mnt or /media?
That's fine but those two definitions don't cover mounting a permanently available partition. Practice varies - I haven't used /mnt in the past 5 years.
Gigabyte B550I Aorus Pro AX, Ryzen 5 5600G, 16GB, 250GB Samsung SSD (GPT), 2x1TB HDD (MBR), MX-21-AHS
Lenovo Thinkpad X220, dual-core i5, 4MB, 120GB Samsung SSD (GPT), MX-21
Re: /mnt or /media?
I've not had problems using /media for my Data partition the past 5 years.
When I use gnome-disk-utility, I use its edit function to change the mount point before saving the fstab details.
When I use gnome-disk-utility, I use its edit function to change the mount point before saving the fstab details.
Desktop: Intel i5-4460, 16GB RAM, Intel integrated graphics
Clevo N130WU-based Ultrabook: Intel i7-8550U (Kaby Lake R), 16GB RAM, Intel integrated graphics (UEFI)
ASUS X42D laptop: AMD Phenom II, 6GB RAM, Mobility Radeon HD 5400
Clevo N130WU-based Ultrabook: Intel i7-8550U (Kaby Lake R), 16GB RAM, Intel integrated graphics (UEFI)
ASUS X42D laptop: AMD Phenom II, 6GB RAM, Mobility Radeon HD 5400
Re: /mnt or /media?
as a few users have mentioned , these days on certain linux systems , if you plug in a usb hard drive it gets mounted under /media
in the early stages of linux , which would be a total disaster for most who discover linux now , let's be honest , because in the early fedora or even before redhat , was not mounted directly , you had to be a firm giant are to play a DVD movie and link it under mnt.
in the beginning of 1998/99 this was inlaugh in rain how can i play my dvd collection in redhat , but not everyone at that time succeeded in their aim.
because then also the right codecs have to be found, which was also quite a task for many.
now everything is served to you on a saucer.
I have experienced the pure internet in the beginning where you can still surf without blocks on the browsers.
I don't know how redhat and similar work nowadays, I never look at bad systems that are not user-friendly, I completely ignore everything that runs on redhat and similar .
I've even been online with dial-up and bbs systems , my first computer in front of me was in 1982 , with dir , list , copyx for amiga computers , that's quite a long time ago so we are getting old.
in the early stages of linux , which would be a total disaster for most who discover linux now , let's be honest , because in the early fedora or even before redhat , was not mounted directly , you had to be a firm giant are to play a DVD movie and link it under mnt.
in the beginning of 1998/99 this was inlaugh in rain how can i play my dvd collection in redhat , but not everyone at that time succeeded in their aim.
because then also the right codecs have to be found, which was also quite a task for many.
now everything is served to you on a saucer.
I have experienced the pure internet in the beginning where you can still surf without blocks on the browsers.
I don't know how redhat and similar work nowadays, I never look at bad systems that are not user-friendly, I completely ignore everything that runs on redhat and similar .
I've even been online with dial-up and bbs systems , my first computer in front of me was in 1982 , with dir , list , copyx for amiga computers , that's quite a long time ago so we are getting old.

Re: /mnt or /media?
After looking at yesterday’s post about mounting an external hard drive,
viewtopic.php?f=104&p=648570#p648570
and recalling dolphin’s comment from an earlier post,
viewtopic.php?p=645518#p645518
;of which the two methods are diffeerent without context.
I stumbled upon this link:
https://askubuntu.com/questions/22215/w ... -and-media
which led to – among others – this link which in certain situations suggests mounting
with /mnt as opposed to /media to avoid potential umask issues.
https://samtinkers.wordpress.com/2015/0 ... a-servers/
Just for FYI, or any thoughts, and any thoughts on the umask issues if mounted at arbitrary mount points, e.g. /data.
Cheers.
viewtopic.php?f=104&p=648570#p648570
and recalling dolphin’s comment from an earlier post,
viewtopic.php?p=645518#p645518
;of which the two methods are diffeerent without context.
I stumbled upon this link:
https://askubuntu.com/questions/22215/w ... -and-media
which led to – among others – this link which in certain situations suggests mounting
with /mnt as opposed to /media to avoid potential umask issues.
https://samtinkers.wordpress.com/2015/0 ... a-servers/
Just for FYI, or any thoughts, and any thoughts on the umask issues if mounted at arbitrary mount points, e.g. /data.
Cheers.