So this confirms it's a new defect in Ubuntu's Samba library. Final rant begins! I reiterate, Windows has no problem at all with reading and writing shares on my NAS, and neither did Hardy. A bug is a matter of actual interoperability and user expectation. One day, somebody changed something in the SMB library used by Ubuntu and it broke compatibility with servers that other miscellaneous clients can still use just fine. They caused a bug.
Contrary to your allegation, I had read the previous comments and had seen the nodfs workaround but did not find it acceptable from a design point of view. Again, a lot of hand waving and misdirection to try to ignore that somebody coded Samba however they felt like that day regardless of the impact it had on the real user population. It's like some people love Ubuntu so much that they will defend the indefensible - even in an Ubuntu bug tracker forum with 93 posts and three duplicate reports! :-) What do all the unaffected clients have in common? They don't use the new Samba. If this buggy version of Samba had not been added to Ubuntu we would not have seen a problem. That's the hilarious part of the bug: The Samba project only broke compatibility with *themselves*. Here's what it boils down to. The only way you could argue this was not due to a defect in Ubuntu is to suggest there is some specification somewhere which says that the new version of Samba is the one true "correct" version and therefore the CIFS share in my NAS should *never* have worked properly at all when mounted by the smbmount module in Hardy, and by the client in prior Unbuntu versions, AND by the equivalent subsystem in Windows XP, AND by my WM6 PocketPC phone. Even if that were true, in practice what is the value of such knowledge when the cure is worse than the disease? Samba is not the centre of the universe. We are people who do not expect O/S "upgrades" to break compatibility with perfectly functional file servers. It should not have been fixed it if it wasn't broken. A peer-to-peer protocol library should not have been changed in a way that required all clients and servers to be updated simultaneously. My problem isn't with you personally, Vide, since you've been quite helpful actually. The systemic problem is the "fractured community" nature of Linux development, which routinely lacks care, cohesion, and practicality. Yeah, I shouldn't expect much for free. Thank you for taking the time to spell out what I consider to be a workaround. I guess under the circumstances I'll have to take whatever remedy I can get. I'll give it a try. -- Access to samba 3.0.24-3.0.25 shares using CIFS is broken on 8.10 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/286828 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
