"Programmatically" it makes a lot of sense.
Do you see any fundamental difference in
from user POV?
> does the need to explicitly "mount" and "umount" (the n having gotten
> lost while moving from one office to another a few years back) a floppy
> disk. This is one place where, I hate to say it, drive letters a la
> DOS/Windows (or some other top-level identifier) are significantly
> better from a user perspective.
You can live without mount/umount. Automounter is your friend.
It is theoretically possible to teach filesystems to sync dirty
data to removable media ASAP and to cope with diskettes being removed without
umount ("no disk? do we have diryt buffers? no? ok, implicit umount").
Who's volunteering to do that is an open question. :-)
I live with automounter with short umount timeout.
-- vda - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to email@example.com More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/