And that panel Places also show somehing like Network??? Should that look if my eth0 is up???
I was a bit sarcastic here. But I still wonder what that Network is supposed to do?
On 2010-12-28 11:36, hcvv wrote:
> they are mounted by hand or not?) and another one looks at what is
> mounted. It is a mess.
Yes, it is. But, I think that gnome simply ignores an entry listed in
fstab. It does not look at the noauto: if the partition is listed, then it
is not my task to mount it, that’s all. I don’t get an icon for it, so
that’s perfect.
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 11.2 x86_64 “Emerald” at Telcontar)
That is a + for Gnome then. When you mean “gnome simply ignores an entry listed in fstab” do you mean it does not use fstab? Then the noauto is not applicable anymore.
(I would not know why it should look there, a file manager has nothing to do with partitions).
<sigh> But Windows (at least up to W2K) is too stupid to know about filesystems other than FAT and NTFS so Unix filesystems are safe.
I Like seeing all the partitions and be able to mount on the fly if I need them. But I’m sole user of the machine. I can see that in some circumstances you might not want these to be listed to the user even though they can not mount them without root permissions. So this needs to be a user level with a default system level option that is easer to implement then editing HAL policy files.
On 2010-12-28 16:06, hcvv wrote:
>
> That is a + for Gnome then. When you mean “gnome simply ignores an entry
> listed in fstab” do you mean it does not use fstab? Then the -noauto- is
> not applicable anymore.
No no, I mean it reads the file, and then ignores the partitions listed
there. It does not put an icon to click and mount them. I only see the
floppy, an encripted partition, and one named “0” which I don’t know where
it is at this moment (it says “multi-disk device”).
The rationale is that, if a partition is listed in fstab, it is not the
task of the desktop to offer mount them, it is something for the administrator.
We don’t have a global setup where the administrator can decide policies:
what to offer the users. Perhaps the user may need to mount or not a partition
> (I would not know why it should look there, a file manager has nothing
> to do with partitions).
I’m not sure. Perhaps it makes things easier for new, home, users. But it
does things more difficult for system properly administered. So we need a
method to apply mandatory policies, used by all desktop systems.
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 11.2 x86_64 “Emerald” at Telcontar)
Perhaps it makes things easier for new, home, users.
You forgot to add something:
Perhaps it makes things easier for new,used to Windows, home, users.
because imho that is the problem. please_try_again said it earlier in this thread:
Dolphin, nautilus, Thunar and others are all pieces od the same kind of … whatever you can figure out … and all suffer from the Windows syndrom: making the user interface as friendly as possible and automounting, autoshowing, autoKISSing as many things as possible.
We are on the wromg way here. Instead of trying to teach how it should work, every effort is put in letting it malfunction “because that is how it is in Windows”.
On 2010-12-28 23:06, hcvv wrote:
>> Perhaps it makes things easier for new, home, users.
> You forgot to add something:
>> Perhaps it makes things easier for new,used to Windows, home, users.
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 11.2 x86_64 “Emerald” at Telcontar)
Speaking of nautilus … try and find the differences between these two pictures! lol! >:(
http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4668/nautilus.th.png](http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4668/nautilus.png) … http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/106/nautilus2.th.png](http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/106/nautilus2.png)
Well, both Places panels are full of riddles to me.
On 2010-12-29 12:06, please try again wrote:
>
> Speaking of nautilus … try and find the differences between these two
> pictures! lol! >:(
The difference is obvious, but I don’t know why. One shows partitions, the
other not. And the first one doesn’t have a cdrom entry.
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 11.2 x86_64 “Emerald” at Telcontar)
OK. Let me try to explain what I can explain, as several things are beyond my understanding - and beyond commonsense as well. The partitions in picture #1 (post #29) are FreeBSD primary partitions and have partition ID 0xA5. Now the question is not if users should or not be allowed to see them or click on icons in a filemanager to mount them. Such partitions are absolutely “unmountable”, they are just like the extended partition: containers for other partitions (that we prefer to call “slices” under Unix). Those slices can be mounted (by default read only) under Linux, if the Linux kernel has been compiled with BSD disklabel support, as is the case for openSUSE kernel and all others I know. udev generates the dev special files for all slices listed in the BSD disklabel and starts numbering them after the last (DOS based) logical partition, as shown on the pictures in this thread: Displaying partitions infos from hal daemon). Notice that all these partitions that showed up in Dolphin (picture #1 post #11) and got successfully hidden by the hal policy (post #19) never appeared in nautilus. On the other hand nautilus displays icons for “container” partitions and IMO the udev infos reporting that these partitions contain a ufs filesystem and the filesystem usage are wrong:
**udisks --show-info /dev/sda2**
Showing information for /org/freedesktop/UDisks/devices/sda2
native-path: /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:09.0/host2/target2:0:0/2:0:0:0/block/sda/sda2
device: 8:2
device-file: /dev/sda2
presentation: /dev/sda2
by-id: /dev/disk/by-id/ata-WDC_WD5000AAKS-00A7B2_WD-WCASY8117294-part2
by-id: /dev/disk/by-id/scsi-SATA_WDC_WD5000AAKS-_WD-WCASY8117294-part2
by-id: /dev/disk/by-id/wwn-0x50014ee2ae2c4fa3-part2
by-path: /dev/disk/by-path/pci-0000:00:09.0-scsi-0:0:0:0-part2
detected at: Wed Dec 29 18:04:27 2010
system internal: 1
removable: 0
has media: 1 (detected at Wed Dec 29 18:04:27 2010)
detects change: 0
detection by polling: 0
detection inhibitable: 0
detection inhibited: 0
is read only: 0
is mounted: 0
mount paths:
mounted by uid: 0
presentation hide: 0
presentation nopolicy: 0
presentation name:
presentation icon:
size: 146064522240
block size: 512
job underway: no
usage: filesystem
type: ufs
version: 1
uuid:
label:
partition:
part of: /org/freedesktop/UDisks/devices/sda
scheme:
number: 2
type:
flags:
offset: 37860963840
alignment offset: 0
size: 146064522240
label:
uuid:
I guess that in order to hide such partitions, presentation hide has to be switched on. But how? where? The udev rule suggested by James in post #3 doesn’t work for that partition, neither do the following rules:
ENV{UDISKS_PARTITION_SCHEME}=="mbr", \
ENV{UDISKS_PARTITION_TYPE}=="0xa5|0xa6|0xa9", \
ENV{UDISKS_PRESENTATION_HIDE}="1"
or
ENV{UDISKS_PARTITION_SCHEME}=="mbr", \
ENV{ID_FS_TYPE}=="ufs", \
ENV{UDISKS_PRESENTATION_HIDE}="1"
I also tried to modify /lib/udev/rules.d/80-udisks-rules (installed by the udisks package) by adding FreeBSD partition ID (0xa5) to the IDs of other partitions it is supposed to hide:
# special MBR partition types (EFI, hidden, etc.)
# see http://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/partitions/partition_types-1.html
ENV{UDISKS_PARTITION_SCHEME}=="mbr", \
ENV{UDISKS_PARTITION_TYPE}=="0x00|0x11|0x12|0x14|0x16|0x17|0x1b|0x1c|0x1e|0x27|0x3d|0x84|0x8d|0x90|0x91|0x92|0x93|0x97|0x98|0x9a|0x9b|0xbb|0xc2|0xc3|0xdd|0xef|0xa5", \
ENV{UDISKS_PRESENTATION_HIDE}="1"
After each change, I reloaded the rules with:
udevadm control --reload-rules
or even rebooted. But no luck!
Now you’re going to ask what does picture #2 (post #29) mean and how come that those partitions icons magically vanished…
Well … I don’t have the explanation for sure. Picture #1 shows a nautilus Window as it would appear under Gnome, KDE, LXDE and (standalone) openbox. Picture #2 shows the same nautilus Windows but under XFCE (?!?) and icewm. I would understand - but I don’t - that icewm - which isn’t member of the freedesktop happy family - wouldn’t load the same entire machinery and handle nautilus differently … but in the case of XFCE … da bin ich ueberfragt (I really don’t know).
I can reproduce the same behaviour on half a dozen computers running openSUSE, Ubuntu, Mandriva, Fedora and Arch Linux and different Gnome or KDE minor versions.
- Under Gnome/KDE/LXDE : nautilus stupidely shows icons for FreeBSD primary partitions.
- Under XFCE or icewm: it does not.
On 2010-12-30 06:06, please try again wrote:
…
Curious.
> Now you’re going to ask what does picture #2 (post #29) mean and how
> come that those partitions icons magically vanished…
>
> Well … I don’t have the explanation for sure. Picture #1 shows a
> nautilus Window as it would appear under Gnome, KDE, LXDE and
> (standalone) openbox. Picture #2 shows the same nautilus Windows but
> under XFCE (?!?) and icewm. I would understand - but I don’t - that
> icewm - which isn’t member of the freedesktop happy family - wouldn’t
> load the same entire machinery and handle nautilus differently … but
> in the case of XFCE … -da bin ich ueberfragt- (I really don’t know).
>
> I can reproduce the same behaviour on half a dozen computers running
> openSUSE, Ubuntu, Mandriva, Fedora and Arch Linux and different Gnome or
> KDE minor versions.
>
> - Under Gnome/KDE/LXDE : nautilus stupidely shows icons for FreeBSD
> primary partitions.
> - Under XFCE or icewm: it does not.
Then it means that nautilus is getting the info from some intermediary that
is not running in the second case. What intermediary? I do not know.
What about defining entries in fstab for those? I think there is a “none”
type of filesystem :-? …] There is “none” for mount point, used for
swap. Ah, yes, there is an ignore token!
See man fstab, second and third fields.
Perhaps:
/device none ignore
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 11.2 x86_64 “Emerald” at Telcontar)
Wild guess: XFCE and icewm do not use dbus?
- In nautilus, it shows a bunch of samba servers here. When I click of one of those, it mounts the Windows shares.
- In dolphin, it shows several icons:
[LIST] - Network (which does nothing)
- Network services (which includes fish and sftp for several servers)
- Samba shares, including workgroups containing samba servers. When I click of one of those, it mounts the Windows shares too.
[/LIST]
That works ! rotfl!
/dev/sda2 none ignore
/dev/sda3 none ignore
/dev/sdb2 none ignore
/dev/sdb3 none ignore
It looks like we’ve finally managed to isolate all kinds of partitions in that thread.
But you’ll agree that it’s a hack. I never thought I would have to add entries for “extended” partitions in /etc/fstab in order to hide them from filemanagers.
On 2010-12-30 13:36, please try again wrote:
> That works ! rotfl!
Gosh!
Perfect, as long as you don’t even want to mount them manually, as root, at
some time, which I think is your case.
Mmm… I think I could use the trick myself, to make the encrypted
partitions disappear. They are mounted via script, so this might be the
proper way… :-?
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 11.2 x86_64 “Emerald” at Telcontar)
On 2010-12-30 13:36, please try again wrote:
>
> But you’ll agree that it’s a hack. I never thought I would have to add
> entries for “extended” partitions in /etc/fstab in order to hide them
> from filemanagers.
A hack? Dunno.
I had my part on this actually working. I reported on bugzilla that gnome
was trying to mount itself partitions that said something different in
fstab - after several versions, it is finally working 
The filemanager in the desktop is complying with what the system
configuration says. If it says nothing, it tries to handle it. If it says
something, hands off. I think it is the appropriate way.
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 11.2 x86_64 “Emerald” at Telcontar)
I do not have Samba here, so why show a Samba shares option??
The other ones are also emtpy in my stem. Again why show an empty item.
BTW, as end-user, you can right click on these icons and “hide” them. But we were of course talking about showing things that are not available at all for the end-user.