(imagine usb sticks at an internet-cafe using multi-seat computers, this sort of thing)
during full moon, in transylvania, when you have eaten something after midnight.
such a huge amount of crap being pushed to us linux users lately...
Well... even if it does not come in handy for me, I understand the idea behind it. Since the old unix days the multiuser approach has been one of the main advantages, don't you think? And as /run is likely to be more widespread in the near future it might be better getting used anyway...
]]>@macaco: that should work, but notice that you will have one folder per user, so the /media symlink will only point to one of them...
Maybe a FUSE filesystem that redirects the users to their respective mount folders would be the way to go if you want to keep /media with udisks2?
]]>As far as symlinking /run/user/media to /media, in a multiuser system if it's that important to have everything in /media while using udisks2 couldn't you write a one-line command to stick in your users' bash_profile then add a sudo nopasswd entry for that command?
]]>It all feels very convoluted and overdone somehow.
For me though, as a desktop user with self-granted sudo rights;
I find having everything manually set up in fstab, both internal and my sometimes-used-usb media with UUID and 'noauto'
Is much more kiss and easy.
With bash-history-completion aswell, everything is just a quick: sudo mount <TAB> <ENTER> away.
It just feels more "clean" to me
]]>symlink /run/user/media to where you want it.
quit whining
Means I can put the symlink to /media and thus remain my shell habits unchanged?
]]>I've never understood the need for a separate /media anyway. For GUI users it makes exactly zero difference, for CLI users a bit more but its like two to 4 more keys (and symlinks work as well).
Plus, shell users are more likely to mount disks manually, and /mnt is shorter than /media. Though, tab-completion probably renders the whole thing moot.
]]>(imagine usb sticks at an internet-cafe using multi-seat computers, this sort of thing)
during full moon, in transylvania, when you have eaten something after midnight.
such a huge amount of crap being pushed to us linux users lately...
Meh, maybe I should not try to give examples.
The point is that we want to design systems in such a way that they "just work" on the widest possible range of use-cases, now and in the future, including ones we haven't thought of. And by "just work", I also mean that there should be no security holes. As UNIX is essentially a multi-user system, we better make sure it works soundly with more than one user. Previous solution to this problem was either unsafe, or it required manual hacking/tweaking....
]]>(imagine usb sticks at an internet-cafe using multi-seat computers, this sort of thing)
during full moon, in transylvania, when you have eaten something after midnight.
such a huge amount of crap being pushed to us linux users lately...
Perhaps you're confusing 'choice' with 'I want it my way'?
I've never understood the need for a separate /media anyway. For GUI users it makes exactly zero difference, for CLI users a bit more but its like two to 4 more keys (and symlinks work as well).
]]>quit whining
]]>(imagine usb sticks at an internet-cafe using multi-seat computers, this sort of thing)
during full moon, in transylvania, when you have eaten something after midnight.
such a huge amount of crap being pushed to us linux users lately...
]]>@macaco: The reason for the move to user-specific media folders is that (possibly auto-)mounted removable media should only be accessible to the user who mounted them (imagine usb sticks at an internet-cafe using multi-seat computers, this sort of thing).
]]>Why is it, that media have to be mounted in /run/user/media? It's quite a long path if you want to access your external devices via bash. To me a toplevel directory, be it /mnt or be it /media, did make a lot more sense. Are there any problems to be expected if I set a link /var/user/media to /media?
]]>