[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: usb-key files locked by unknown user



On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:22:54 -0400
Mark Grieveson <dg135@torfree.net> wrote:

> The usb/flash drive probably has the FAT32 filesystem on it, which
> does not
> support permissions.  Is it listed in /etc/fstab?  The 'owner'
> option there
> might fix your problem.  


I think there is some sort of issue with the mounting of it.  I did try
adding "owner" to the options, but that did not work (and gave some
other erratic results; so, I switched back.)  I use fluxbox, and I
manually mount usb-drives and digital cameras. My set up in
the /etc/fstab file is:

/dev/sda1       /media/usb      vfat    noauto,user     0       0
/dev/sdb1       /media/usb2     vfat    noauto,user     0       0
/dev/sdc1       /media/usb3     vfat    noauto,user     0       0

I have links to the media mount files in my user's home directory.  I
have a usb hub with four ports.  The first, sda1, is where the
usb-stick is.  The second is where I mount the digital camera.  The
third was for a palm pilot, but I don't use this anymore (it broke, so
I went back to a pen and paper day-timer, which, frankly, is more
efficient).  The fourth port is for my scanner.

I've had no problems with this set up for over a year, until now.  I am
able to open files and edit them via the command line (IE, entering
"soffice file.odt" from the terminal is fine, but when I click on an
icon for these files in rox filer or emelfm to open them, I get the
"file is in use by another unknown user so read only" message).  One
directory cannot be read, though I did read it last night, and copied
it to a new directory.  Perhaps, as someone previously suggested, the
usb-stick is either broken or beginning to break down.  It does seem to
work without an issue on the Windows machines at school, however.

As always, feedback (particularly on why mounting via the command line
gives different results from mounting via a gui file manager) is always
appreciated.

Mark


Reply to: