On Sat, 2006-02-25 at 18:59 +0000, Nate Nielsen wrote:
> Alexander Larsson wrote:
> > I didn't look in detail at the patch, but that sounds like a good idea.
> > And with this in place I'd be more inclined to always log in as
> > anonymous when possible to avoid lots of login dialogs.
> >
> > However, isn't there still an issue with browsing anonymously? How
> > common is it to allow anonymous browsing, but then not show all shares?
>
> On every network I've seen, there are always hidden shares. But they're
> genuinely hidden, not only hidden from certain users. On many networks
> with a domain controller browsing doesn't work, without authenticating
> against the local domain controller as a certain user. However that's
> just the use cases I've seen.
>
> What we really should be doing is keeping track of whether we're
> browsing with a username specified in the URI, and then generate the
> machine and share 'links' with that same username. This would facilitate
> making a link to a machine or workgroup (ie: smb://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/) and
> that authentication info would be forced on everything accessed through
> that 'Connected Server'.
>
> BTW, what's the time frame for getting these changes into GNOME? If it's
> not until next release, then I have other pressing matters, but if we
> want them and we think we can test them before hard code freeze, then I
> can dedicate more time to it.
We're one week from total code freeze for the current release. I don't
think we can do anything more substantial at this point, only minor
obviously correct changes.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Alexander Larsson Red Hat, Inc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
He's a suave amnesiac cowboy trapped in a world he never made. She's an
orphaned green-skinned opera singer married to the Mob. They fight crime!
_______________________________________________
gnome-vfs-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-vfs-list
