Comment 77 for bug 209520
Revision history for this message
| DrC (drcowsley) wrote Re: SMB error: Unable to mount location when server configured with security=share | #77 |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
a60fb26
(Get the code!)
Sebastien -
It helps visibility if you have a clean Desktop.
With a standard Samba-on-Debian server, from your Hardy client, as a valid samba user:
Places-Connect to Server
Service type: Windows share
Server name
Give a user home share name, the user name and connect.
You are asked for a password.
You get your personalised version of:
Can't display location "smb://
But notice there is now a desktop icon for the share. Click OK on the warning message.
Now doubleclick on the icon.
Depending on how you asked for your password to be remembered you might be asked for it again.
If the samba name is not the same as your Ubuntu user name (supplied as default) you will need to overwrite the user name to match the samba account name.
*******
In a 'security = share' environment
this step could give users a problem.
*******
You are now in. But note there is now a second icon on your desktop (not always obvious if your desktop is cluttered!)
These two icons look the same, but there is a subtle difference.
If you unmount the second icon, the first will recreate a second icon when you use it. But if you unmount the first icon, the second icon will behave properly, and will not recreate a further icon.
Having suffered it myself, I can confirm the time-out problem reported earlier is also real - and (speculation) it may possibly have something to do with the password time out built in to gnome to permit root tasks.
This bug may be being difficult because there seem to be many different ways users can trigger different effects. The security = user and security = share issue may have come about because they show the bug in slightly different lights. I only have security = user an all my samba servers, and I see many of the effects posted by others. Since it all came about at the same time - with Hardy - the assumption that there are two different bugs might be counter-productive - or it might have been when the problem first surfaced. (Such assumptions can become self-fulfilling.)
Hopefully we have one team looking at the whole problem.
And hopefully, this contribution helps.
Chris