I must say that a UUID is something only a mother UUID could love. I feel that any system that helps better identify the hard drive partition at a glance is the thing to use. I do understand there may be other considerations, but as long as real people must deal with fstab, device.map and menu.lst files, a human readable identification is most likely a requirement. I also understand that automatic methods exist to deal with these files as well, but again I am not a mother UUID, yet.lol!
Take a look at your Windows registry (an come back to us as quick as possible!) lol!
God, at least one of the reasons I like using Linux is because I do not want/like to look at a Windows registry. I consider Windows a necessary EVIL I must live with. And, nothing Windows is doing would make me love a UUID anymore. One thing is for sure, if you think UUID’s are good, then I truly believe you, just like taking that terrible tasting medicine today will make me feel better in the morning. Maybe so, but I still say that UUID’s are something only a mother UUID could love.
> I must say that a UUID is something only a mother UUID could love. I
> feel that any system that helps better identify the hard drive partition
> at a glance is the thing to use. I do understand there may be other
> considerations, but as long as real people must deal with fstab,
> device.map and menu.lst files, a human readable identification is most
> likely a requirement. I also understand that automatic methods exist to
> deal with these files as well, but again I am not a mother UUID,
I’m finding myself really missing the auto-mount of previous versions where
external USB hard drives were mounted as /media/disk, media/disk1,
media/disk2, etc. Not very informative as to which drive is which unless
the drive has multiple partitions in which case they are mounted by-label.
I don’t know if UUIDs are good or bad. They are just a way to identify partitions. They don’t change (unlike disks ID) unless you reformat a partition, and you can change them if you feel you need to with tune2fs -U. I’ve been explaining the differences between mounting by-id and mounting by-uuid, as well as using a notation wich doesn’t involve udev symlinks (although as I mentionned previously, if udev doesn’t work, nothing else is going to work anyway). Each method has advantages and inconvenients. To put it simply, il you intend to play with partitions (add/remove some), the method by-uuid is safer, as each partition’s UUID is independent from the others. If you intend to play with hard disks (backup/duplicate) and for some reason mount both the original and the copy, by-id is safer as each duplicated partition will have a different ID based on the hard disk serial. Otherwise if you like to call things by names, you can label the partitions and mount by labels. Labels get written in the superblock as the “Filesystem volume name”. Labels are optionals while UUIDs are not. You can mount NTFS partitions under Linux by their UUIDs as well.
Hmmm … Do you mean under KDE? Could it be that KDE is now entirely using udev and doesn’t use hal at all anymore? In that case the automount of USB hard drives could be achieved with a udev rule. You’ll find examples by googling a little bit. I guess we might have some here too.
As you see, even after you are satisfied with the help here, the discussion goes on. That is why we do not make a thread CLOSED and block it. It would frustrate those who like to add more and more information
Does it mean that the EVIL is necessary? lol! >:) lol!
OK. Forget it! Let us avoid the philosophical trap!
please_try_again, this question reminds me of DenverD’s Question; “Suppose there were no hypothetical questions?”