26

What is the purpose of having both? Aren't they both used for mounting drives?

Gilles 'SO- stop being evil'
  • 807,993
  • 194
  • 1,674
  • 2,175
user
  • 2,227
  • 6
  • 20
  • 25
  • 1
    http://askubuntu.com/questions/22215/why-have-both-mnt-and-media – Mikel Jan 02 '16 at 06:23
  • 2
    @mohammad.k, this question hadn't been asked before on this site and is totally valid. See [How should we deal with Google questions?](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/8729/307622) on Meta. I've written more on this subject [here](http://meta.unix.stackexchange.com/a/3702/135943). – Wildcard Jan 02 '16 at 06:48

2 Answers2

33

I recommend visiting the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard.

  • /media is mount point for removable media. In other words, where system mounts removable media. This directory contains sub-directories used for mounting removable media such as CD-ROMs, floppy disks, etc.

  • /mnt is for temporary mounting. In other words, where user can mount things. This directory is generally used for mounting filessytems temporarily when needed.

Ref:
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#MEDIAMOUNTPOINT
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#MNTMOUNTPOINTFORATEMPORARILYMOUNT

goetz
  • 369
  • 2
  • 6
Pandya
  • 23,898
  • 29
  • 92
  • 144
  • 20
    What about less than temporary mounts? Where would you mount a partition "permanently"? – To Do Jan 02 '16 at 21:19
  • 1
    The only good answer to this is "yes" or "anywhere you like". You can always locate a mount at a later point with either `mount`, `findmnt`, or other similar commands. – Zhro Feb 03 '19 at 00:02
  • 1
    Why would I mount anything in root? That would require applications and Terminal sudo to be able to write to the. Why not just use home? I'm mounting a folder from local network. – Shayan Sep 28 '19 at 09:04
25

use /mnt for stuff you mount by yourself

leave /media for the system to mount its stuff

DuploRaf
  • 271
  • 2
  • 4