Linux

48356 readers

759 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

nooter692@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

d3Xt3r

125

/media or /mnt or anywhere ? Discussion. (lemmy.today)

submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by gpstarman@lemmy.today to c/linux@lemmy.ml

161 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Where should I mount my internal drive partitions?

As far as I searched on the internet, I came to know that

/Media = mount point for removable media that system do it itself ( usb drive , CD )

/Mnt = temporarily mounting anything manually

I can most probably mount anything wherever I want, but if that's the case what's the point of /mnt? Just to be organised I suppose.

TLDR

If /mnt is for temporary and /media is for removable where should permanent non-removable devices/partitions be mounted. i.e. an internal HDD which is formatted as NTFS but needs to be automounted at startup?

Asking with the sole reason to know that, what's the practice of user who know Linux well, unlike me.

I know this is a silly question but I asked anyway.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] gpstarman@lemmy.today 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

OS "replaces" its contents AND permissions with that of the filesystem's root.

So, the original content is lost forever?

setting permissions is just extreme pedantry

So, what's the actual use case of it though? Even though it's pedantry, it still there has to be some benefits, right?

I mean, What's the need for you to deny the access of /mnt/a untill has mounted with something? One can just leave it as it is, right?

[–] Sonotsugipaa@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

So, the original content is lost forever?

No, but it becomes invisible and inaccessible* as long as the filesystem is mounted over it - see this Stack Exchange question and accepted answer.

The benefits are marginal, for example I can see if a filesystem is mounted by simply typing ll /mnt (ll being an alias of ls -lA) - it comes handy with my system due to how I manage a bunch of virtual machines and their virtual disks, and it's short and easy to type.
Some programs may refuse to write inside inaccessible directories, even if the root user can always modify regular files and directories as long as the filesystem supports it.

It's not a matter of security, it's more of a hint that if I'm trying to create something inside those directories then I'm doing something wrong (like forgetting to mount a filesystem) and "permission denied" errors let me know that I am.

[–] gpstarman@lemmy.today 2 points 4 months ago

it's more of a hint that if I'm trying to create something inside those directories then I'm doing something wrong (like forgetting to mount a filesystem) and "permission denied" errors let me know that I am.

Now I understand.

This is all new to me bro.

Even I don't know if I will go this further to explain something to someone.

Thanks Chad.