SamK
Off Topic
…a simple way to connect to network data is also using SpaceFM file manager, where network shares can be attached via simple smb:// or nfs:// address in the FM address box, so actually you might say there is no need for Connectshares after all…
Adopting that approach ties the user to a particular file manager, in the above case, SpaceFM. It also limits access to the shares to that file manager. The file manager must be running at all times access to the shares is wanted. Overall it is more restrictive because imposes unnecessary choices upon the user.
Some of the principal objectives of Connectshares are to confer the maximum amount of flexibility and freedom of choice by not having such limitations and restrictions:
-
• There is no tie to a particular file manager,
• Shares may be accessed via any file manager or no file manager at all,
• Files on shares can be directly accessed from within an app e.g. word processor, graphic image editor, audio/video player,
• Only linux standard packages and methods are employed which have many years of reliable operation,
• Connectshares only runs while mounting the shares/exports, it is not running all the time share access is wanted.
Overall, Connectshares is more flexible and less demanding than the mechanism you have described. The following chart was produced some years ago. It compares Connectshaes with Thunar. It was published in the former antiX forum. Because of the elapsed time there may be some minor changes but the majority of it still applies.
http://www.tapatalk.com/groups/antix/viewtopic.php?p=33315#p33315
If anyone wants it in this forum I will try to find my original
If your system is multiuser you might need a systemwide connection to network shares.
These two approaches (individual connection vs. systewide connection) could server two different objectives in multiuser system as well: One might need to have one common SMB share available to all users for sharing data among them and assign separate personal shares to each one of them. These two requirements are common in workgroups in corporate environment.
In a multi-user corporate site it is common to have multi-seat systems i.e. multiple users can use any of many individual systems. In my experience of such cases it has never been needed, wanted or allowed that every user has access to the to a single universal share. By forcing connection to a common share at boot-up access is given to everyone irrespective of whether it is appropriate or not. It is widely regarded best practice to control access to resources from the starting point of granting sufficient rights (and no more) for an employee to conduct their duties and that is done in accordance with corporate policy. That is done via the individual user account and the resources it is authorized to use. In this type of scenario control is applied on an individual basis which cannot be achieved by having the described “systemwide” mechanism on each workstation.
It is unclear in what context you are using the phrase “workgroup in a corporate environment”. Wikipedia includes the widely accepted definition
“…a peer-to-peer local area network.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workgroup_(computer_networking)
In the last 15 years I have not seen a corporate location opt for a peer-to-peer network. The domain model has been exclusively employed because “Workgroups are considered difficult to manage beyond a dozen clients, and lack single sign on, scalability, resilience/disaster recovery functionality, and many security features.”
…it is important to include tools which allow and work well to easily allow both types of connections simultaneously, even if not in multiuser workgroup environment so as not impose unnecessary networking restrictions and make it harder than necessary for the user to configure access to network data.
That is simply incorrect.
-
• antiX ships with Connectshares but that does not prevent a user from employing whatever mounting tools they want,
• Given the explanation above about the desirability of mounting via fstab nothing stops a user from doing so while also simultaneously mounting “separate personal shares”, certainly Connectshares does not preclude it,
• As outlined above Connectshares actually provides greater choice and fewer networking restrictions,
• Whether you consider “it harder than necessary” to configure Connectshares is a matter of personal opinion. Entering the address of the server and name of the share does not seem too onerous, especially as it needs to be done only once.