problem with chmod

[Brian McKee]

On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Nils Kassube <kassube at gmx.net> wrote:
> Brian McKee wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Nils Kassube <kassube at gmx.net> wrote:
>> > Brian McKee wrote:
>> >> /mnt is of
>> >> course the traditional place  mount things from fstab...
>> >
>> > I don't think so. According to all I have seen it is meant for
>> > mounting things temporarily.
>> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_Hierarchy_Standard>
>>
>> Please don't over snip
>
> Well, I quoted the relevant point, i.e. you wrote that /mnt is
> traditionally used in fstab. Do you have any reference for your
> allegation?

The relevant part was Derek stating /mnt was a non-standard mount
point.  That's where this silly discussion started.

Please read the FHS - see
<http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#MNTMOUNTPOINTFORATEMPORARILYMOUNT>

The comments above that link under /media are relevant too.

It's a mount point.  It was in use before /media existed.  Please
install any old version of Debian, Redhat or whatever you consider
authoritative pre udev and review the contents of the fstab.  Or
don't.  You are free to mount things where you wish.  I was merely
pointing out it was (and is) commonly used.  I never thought I was old
enough to be defending linux traditions :-(

This seems to be descending into another 'how many angels on a head of
a pin' debate I'm not interested in perpetuating.  I've said my piece
- I will say no more on this topic.

Brian