> > Well, you know what I meant. It's meant as an "alternative." > > I'm not even saying we should use it, you're right that it's not good for busy > media. It waits a whole second after last use to umount, that just won't cut it for > floppies. I could duplicate that behavior (and have actually) with autofs, but it > just isn't good enough for end users. >
the problem is exatly "last use". I do not want to search for tasks holding my fs open and kill them before I can unmount it. That is all. And you can't be sure you do not have something holding your fs open. And the same goes for a large number of users it seems at least those coming from windows world. Just to explain main difference between supermount and the rest of automounters (I have seen so far) and reason for complexity. -andrey
