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. Cheers, Nate _______________________________________________ gnome-vfs-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-vfs-list
