2008/2/29, Sebastien Bacher [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Not clear the CD doesn't boot for most users and not easy to change
because it would mean to have access to the hardware of every
configuration concerned
Nobody expects the ubuntu devs to fix all the bugs in a specific kernel
version. Off
Again, nobody is expecting anybody to fix the issue. Resources are
limited, etc. But is the amount of effort to default to the crossfade
backend, really quantifiable?
Did you read bug #138728? That's an interesting bug about playing being
choppy when using crossfading and it got quite some
On 2/29/08, maybeway36 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:/
How does map to guest = bad user fix anything? Sure I can get into
the share w/out a password prompt, but now it's read only.
I don't see any such problem on my end. Make sure that in smb.conf
you have writable = yes or read only = no (you
2 years. 83 comments. and all we needed was Guest Login = Bad User.
Wow.
*nod* I know exactly where you're coming from on that. I'm pretty
exhausted with trying to get some things even acknowledged, much less
done. There's a general communication problem, in my opinion. Perhaps
it's just
to get things done more
effectively.
There seems to be a large gap between how the ubuntu develops use ubuntu
and rest of us, and what they like to work on, and what we would like
them to work on.
In general if less than 90% of the people is able to do these basic
things, the release should be
*nod* that's the same thing with the hard-disk eating bug. Most systems
are fixed by turning APM off on the disk drive. This is a one liner
that can be dropped in three directories and fix the problem for 90% of
the people. Granted, it is not a *FIX* fix, but it makes it work
without problems
- being able to boot the live-cd and install ubuntu (like dapper, and
it seems like hardy will have this too)
Not clear the CD doesn't boot for most users and not easy to change
because it would mean to have access to the hardware of every
configuration concerned
- being able to play a song
:/
How does map to guest = bad user fix anything? Sure I can get into
the share w/out a password prompt, but now it's read only.
--
the security parameter must be set to share, not user, in smb.conf - Smb/Gnome
sharing broken
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/32067
You received this bug
I have two questions:
1. will this bug finally be fixed in Hardy?
2. has the 'correct' solution been a mystery for all these years? (the Map to
guest = Bad User)
3. will you make the fact that it finally works part of the official Hardy
Release Notes?
I know this sounds like frustration. (it
this fix works perfectly for me. and fixes sharing files with macs
running OSX too, (although that may be a completely different issue).
hope we see it for hardy
should there also be a checkbox in every share dialogue that says:
[x] Allow any user on your local network to view this folder.
which
On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 11:59:19PM -, Ralf Nieuwenhuijsen wrote:
For years now, there is broken GUI functionality in the desktop. No
user understands why it is broken.
To those users: Rather than assuming we're idiots (we're not), or that
we don't care (we do), I suggest you ask.
If you
How's this:
share account
shared group
Shared folder in each homedir
share account is not allowed to log into a normal session.
Daemon monitors the Shared folders, and changes the group of the file
to shared if something gets dropped in the Shared folder.
User is prompted to give the Shared
** Description changed:
- In /etc/samba/smb.conf,
+ For a given share created in the GNOME GUI, the resulting stanza in
+ smb.conf looks like the following:
- we should set
- ;security = user
+ [foo]
+ path = /home/bar/baz/foo
+ available = yes
+ browsable = yes
+ public = yes
+ writable = no
I've edited the summary to clarify what is known about this bug,
including a one line solution that seems to be acceptable - I've
tested that it's factually correct using GNOME, Windows XP on qemu,
and samba, all running on the same machine. I suggest that commenters
reread the summary before
@soren
I am sorry for my tone of voice.
I was getting upset, not by the bug itself, but how it is dealt with.
For years now, there is broken GUI functionality in the desktop. No user
understands why it is broken.
If you would ask the user 'what do you expect?' .. they would say: 'i chose to
It's much worse than user vs. share.
Something must do name resolution. Probably the simplest way is hosts with
server names (not FQDN). Without it, the Gnome browser refuse to display
anything and gives no useful error message other than I can't do that.
The fastest route to a behind a gateway
This is getting _really_ ridiculous.
One of the reasons I dropped Ubuntu is this sense of having to protect
users from themselves.
It closely resembles handing somebody a car, but not the keys, because
he could do harm to himself and others.
Grown up users deserve grown up distributions.
Have
Some more interesting info:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/300489/
In Windows XP Home Edition, all network connections are mapped through the
Guest account. If the Guest account is not enabled or if the Guest account does
not have the appropriate share permissions, the connection does not work
Actually there is nothing about security. It is about to keep Windowx Xp
incompatible to Ubuntu. The same way m$ do ;)
Let's see some facts:
- Ubuntu (Nautilus) _can_ access Ubuntu(samba) with security=user
enabled
- WinXp _can't_ access Ubuntu(samba) with security=user enabled
- WinXp _has_
Soren:also my apologies, I too always thought user = śhare is the only way. I
googled a bit and found that it is indeed possible to have passwordless sharing
with:
security = user
guest account = ok
#now this is the important bit that you too omitted, see here:
On Feb 1, 2008 8:41 AM, Soren Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 10:18:10PM -, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
This is not the correct solution for this problem. If you ask a
Windows user (like you are saying that we should),
That's not what I said at all. Quit putting words
On 2/1/08, Giovanni Bajo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm happy about this, and I am happy if you say look, there is this other
solution which achieves the same usability but it is much more secure. I am
failing to see any alternative proposal at this point (and I'm failing to
see why
The recommended way to deal with complex discussions like this in the
Ubuntu world is to write up a blueprint (aks spec) for the issue.
It is much easier to get the necessary folks from different teams
together and easier to collaborate on the wiki than in a bug tracker.
For example, at UDS in
Getting a blueprint for this is a very good idea.
--
the security parameter must be set to share, not user, in smb.conf - Smb/Gnome
sharing broken
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/32067
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is a direct subscriber.
--
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 09:39:10AM -, Charlie Halford wrote:
I said that if you asked a new Ubuntu user: So, dude, do you think we
should put security=share in your smb.conf?, he'll have no clue what
you're talking about. Hence, it's completely mistaken to say that new
users expect
I said that if you asked a new Ubuntu user: So, dude, do you think we
should put security=share in your smb.conf?, he'll have no clue what
you're talking about. Hence, it's completely mistaken to say that new
users expect that their smb.conf says security=share. No, they don't.
They expect to
My apologies, I did not realise that setting guest_ok would result in
the same view of the shared folder by windows user. I thought that
perhaps the guest setting in samba would prompt the windows user of a
username and password before accepting a blank. If this is not the case,
then perhaps it
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 01:13:08PM -, Ralf Nieuwenhuijsen wrote:
You said: Security will not be set to share. It's an inherently
insecure way to be sharing files.
I did.
Soren, we can repeat this _over_ and _over_ again. There is nothing
about security=share that is not exactly as the
Users also need a way to turn off passwords (and make a glaring
security hole themselves), even if it's not the default.
But yes, the user/passwd database should DEFINITELY be synced.
On Jan 31, 2008 4:21 AM, Soren Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 01:13:08PM -, Ralf
Is it possible to do USER=SHARE for only *some* folders? If so, it
doesn't seem too difficult to set up a Shared folder in each user's
home directory. Would that be a possibility?
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 22:11 +, maybeway36 wrote:
Users also need a way to turn off passwords (and make a
On Jan 31, 2008 11:21 AM, Soren Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could you please try focusing on the problem rather than trying push the
wrong solution to said problem?
We want to make the process of sharing files on your network a) cause
the least amount of surprises, but b) without being
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 10:18:10PM -, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
This is not the correct solution for this problem. If you ask a
Windows user (like you are saying that we should),
That's not what I said at all. Quit putting words in my mouth.
I said that if you asked a new Ubuntu user: So,
@Soren
You said:
Security will not be set to share. It's an inherently insecure way to
be sharing files.
Soren, we can repeat this _over_ and _over_ again. There is nothing
about security=share that is not exactly as the user would_ expect_ it
to be when installing samba.
Use case:
The user
Security will not be set to share. It's an inherently insecure way to
be sharing files. Now that we both have net usershare and
system-config-samba, (I belive) there's already a spec about syncing
passwords between pam and samba, I fail to see the value of this bug
report being kept open anymore?
I'm sorry, but I really do see the value of this being kept open. I
realise that this method is inherently insecure, but it seems people are
ignoring the substantial use-case of a Ubuntu newbie who is used to
sharing his files in Windows, and is faced with the near-labyrinthine
configuration of
The installation process could ask some questions like Do you want to
require a username and password to be entered when accessing this
computer's files over the network?
User if yes, and share if no.
The Shared Folders applet should also allow you to change this EASILY.
--
the security
it may be inherently insecure, but it is the default on Windows - and
Samba is meant for sharing files with windows, so I see much value in
this bug open. If there is no desire to have security = share, I think
there should be an easy way to enable it (and installing system-config-
samba is not
I would say the best wey is to add:
map to guest = Bad User
why? because default settings of ubuntu smb.conf will allow user nobody
but will not allow any other user what not exist in /etc/passwd . With
nautilus this working because this has some workaround and it try to
login as $user and after
So, whats the status of this bug in Hardy?
Is samba sharing still completely broken for those who are not system
maintainers.
And if so, can we at least remove the 'shared folders' stuff from the default
install.
It's confusing because it pretends something will work, when it does not.
And
My thoughts exactly. The default should be changed to share in a
home-oriented distribution like Ubuntu.
--
the security parameter must be set to share, not user, in smb.conf - Smb/Gnome
sharing broken
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/32067
You received this bug notification because you are a
Use:
map to guest = Bad User
with:
security = user
--
the security parameter must be set to share, not user, in smb.conf - Smb/Gnome
sharing broken
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/32067
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is a direct subscriber.
--
@charlie
Yes, it seems the server-client model is one of the tunnel-visions of
linux. It does not suit all areas and use-cases well.
Why not add an anonymous user? A guest user.
This user can log in, This user can access all publicly available files of all
the other users on the system. This
This really needs to be changed in Hardy. PAM synchronisation of users
sounds like a great idea, and security=user should be enabled by
default, so users do not unwittingly open themselves up to attack.
However, the shared folders tool must provide an obvious option to allow
anonymous access, as
Do you guys realize that this is going on since Feb 2006 ?
Do you have an idea why Ubuntu should be preferred over other distros ?
I don't. Sorry!
--
the security parameter must be set to share, not user, in smb.conf - Smb/Gnome
sharing broken
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/32067
You
I like that it lets you change security level.
--
the security parameter must be set to share, not user, in smb.conf - Smb/Gnome
sharing broken
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/32067
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is a direct subscriber.
--
I totally agree with Ralf here:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/samba/+bug/32067/comments/36
I just tried system-config-samba and I didn't like it. It is basically a full
dup of what already is present in Ubuntu:
- The share list is a dupe of Administration / Shared Folders. That's
There's no problem with setting the default level to share!
When you add a shared folder, you can have it read only. And the people
having problem with editing smb.conf is probably home users not wanting
any heavy security anyway. People needing security probably knows how to
edit the config
From what I understand, Share-level security basically leaves you open
to password brute force initiated by your own daemon.
No good.
On Sat, 2007-09-22 at 17:12 +, Anders Østerholt wrote:
There's no problem with setting the default level to share!
When you add a shared folder, you can
Are you sure about that?
In samba log files I have connect to service Music initially as user
nobody
And no other traces of login stuff. No password is supplied at any
point.
I tried to look up the problem you describe, but there seems to be some
misunderstandings about level share creates some
system-config-samba is provided in gutsy in a usable condition. It
supports setting the security level to share. Perhaps a nautilus plugin
similar to nautilus-share can be written that interfaces with system-
config-samba and it can be included by default instead of nautilus-
share.
--
the
I think the config is set to share on my system, and when I try to
connect locally I have no problems, but if another system (xp) tries to
connect, it gets a user/pw dialog.
/* vaguely wonders if self just confused two bug threads, but too tired
to sort it out now */
--
the security parameter
Short-term solution for Gutsy:
1) samba is not installed by default, people explictely require this
package to be installed. They want to share files. It should share files
immideately after installing without requiring futher user interaction!
2) pam-backend keeps it secure, without forcing the
** Summary changed:
- the security parameter must be set to share, not user, in smb.conf
+ the security parameter must be set to share, not user, in smb.conf -
Smb/Gnome sharing broken
--
the security parameter must be set to share, not user, in smb.conf - Smb/Gnome
sharing broken
Regular users need to know be able to enable share-level security
somehow, without having to know what /etc/samba/smb.conf is.
--
the security parameter must be set to share, not user, in smb.conf - Smb/Gnome
sharing broken
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/32067
You received this bug
It would be fine to have user-level security -- if samba uses PAM, and
users of a particular group (which desktop users are members of by
default) are automatically included as samba users.
Then, you try to connect to your machine, and it asks for a password.
You give the password. That gives
55 matches
Mail list logo
