sharing folders with Nautilus

[Tom H]

On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Ric Moore <wayward4now at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-11-08 at 02:44 -0500, Tom H wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 7:34 PM, NoOp <glgxg at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> > On 11/07/2010 12:02 PM, Scott Berry wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> $ cat /etc/hosts
>> >>
>> >> 192.168.1.100 Princess        # Added by NetworkManager
>> >> 127.0.0.1     localhost.localdomain    localhost
>> >> ::1   Princess        localhost6.localdomain6 localhost6 scott.CANINE
>> >>
>> >>> $ hostname
>> >>
>> >> Princess
>> >>
>> >>> $ users
>> >>
>> >> scott scott
>> >>
>> >>> $ cat /etc/samba/smb.conf
>> >>> [note: *only* provide the lines containing:
>> >>> # Change this to the workgroup/NT-domain name your Samba server will part of
>> >> workgroup = CANINE ( just changed)
>> >>
>> >>> Now: please provide the Windows workgroup name that you use on your
>> >>> Windows systems (right click 'My Computer' & click on
>> >>> Properties|Computer Name - you'll see is listed as 'Workgroup:
>> >>> <workgroupname>).
>> >>
>> >> CANINE
>> >
>> > Then
>> > 127.0.0.1 localhost scott.Canine
>> > would be the correct entry.
>>
>> "scott.Canine"?! "<user>.<workgroup>"?!
>>
>> Don't you mean "Princess.Canine"?
>>
>> As a follow-up to a thread of the last few days and for the sake of
>> Googlers, the canonical Debian/Ubuntu ipv4 "/etc/hosts" setup would be
>> (even though I don't use it):
>>
>> 192.168.1.100 Princess   # Added by NetworkManager
>> 127.0.0.1   localhost.localdomain   localhost
>> 127.0.1.1   Princess.Canine   Princess
>
> Sure that's right? You have 192.168.1.100 set to resolve to "Princess"
> and 127.0.1.1 set to alias to "Princess" Wouldn't it blow up? Plus, he's
> got Network Mangler added to the mix. No telling what will happen at any
> given moment.

:) to the last sentence.

I just pointed out that with NM running, having a "127.0.1.1" entry's
not necessary, although all that it's doing is assigning the system
hostname to loopback. I'm not sure of the following but I think that
if/when "/etc/hosts" is checked, the first resolution is used. If - if
- the previous sentence is correct, then the "127.0.1.1" line's never
used - unless NM is disabled and stops updating "/etc/hosts"
dynamically.

I've found the initial rationale for "127.0.1.1". No other
distribution that I use has such an entry but this is how Debian and
Ubuntu are set up by default...

<start>
First of all, the system hostname should always be its own canonical
hostname in the sense of hosts(5), unless the system has a static
domain name, in which case the canonical hostname should be the FQDN
formed from the system hostname and the domain name.

Accordingly, the canonical host name of the system should never be
'localhost.localdomain'; accordingly the system hostname should never
resolve to IP address 127.0.0.1 whose canonical host name is and will
remain 'localhost.localdomain'.  Accordingly, the system hostname
should never be included as an alias for 'localhost.localdomain'.
(This means that netcfg should be changed; see below.)

The system hostname should resolve either to the primary NIC's static
IP address (if there is one) or to the address returned by DNS (if
this is available) or to 127.0.1.1 (failing both of the above).

Obtaining this behavior shouldn't require running a local nameserver and
shouldn't require updating /etc configuration files on the fly.  It
should also work properly when the system hostname is set dynamically
after being assigned by a DHCP server.
</end>