I have a small network of 6 Ubuntu PCs, all using 6.06LTS and running SSH servers, except my own Edgy 6.10.
To manage files on the other PCs I currently have to open the DHCP server on my router, look for the MAC of the PC I want to connect to, and make a note of its current IP. Then I either use GNOME's Connect to Server and fill in all the required details and finally open the connection, or ssh from Gnome Terminal.

What is the simplest way to:-

EITHER get all the other hosts to show up automatically on my PC, perhaps in Nautilus, by hostname rather than IP, and allow easy connection just requiring the login password?

OR at least allow me to enter the hostname into Connect to Server, rather than having to look up the IP in the DHCP server first?

Ideally I would like the choice of opening the connection either in Nautilus or in Gnome Terminal.

for a quick and simple solution, run dnsmasq on one of the systems, assuming there's a suitable machine, and that will be able to do exactly what you want in 5 lines of config.

My solution for this was to use static IPs for all my PCs.
I then list all these in all the /etc/hosts files Eg

So now I can just ssh p3 or vncviewer p4:1
Works for me, but dnsmasq looks like another (fun) solution

certainly that's viable, but then that's a config change on ALL boxes, which kinda sucks if you have more than a few. that said it's often worth asking if you *really* do need DHCP at all...

@ acid_kewpie: I agree.
@ Haz2a:
KDE (yes, I know you are using gnome, and maybe it has similar functionality, otherwise maybe install KDE) has the fish:// protocol built into its browser/filemanager konqueror. This is amazing .

I can put fish://HostName/home/tg into my browser (in reality, I use bookmarks for this, even faster) and zap! I am there, and can drag files to and from the computer I am sitting at. I expect I could drag files between computers I am not sitting at, but haven't needed to test this yet.

I have ssh set up with dsa/rsa-encryption keys, so I do not even have to privide passwords for my accounts. Secure authentication is automatic.

So, the functionality is there, and it all works perfectly.
Just sort out your IP addressing, either like acid_kewpie said, or with static IPs, and you are set to go.

Thanks for your replies.
I do generally find DHCP very convenient so prefer to keep it.

I assume I'm right in thinking that a local DNS would require an always-on machine?
If the DNS was off for a week or two, wouldn't all those local-address links and devices be unreachable?

With that in mind I remembered reading about Avahi-Zeroconf and decided to give that a go. Had a bit of bother sorting Firestarter rules out to allow the multicasting traffic, but it now seems to work well in GNOME, and meets all of my objectives.

heh, i'm getting old it seems... need to pick up on avahi... seen it load in a number of fedora releases now, no clue what it's really doing...

@ Haz2a
Then keep it
If you have set it up so DNS is served locally then, yes, the DNS server will need to be running, and reachable.
Quite possibly. It will depend on how the different systems are set up, and how they use caches and how often they are rebooted. You may have to do some experiments to find out what works under which circumstances.

To sum up: It all depends on what level of reliability and connectivity you need. If it is your home network, and grandma says she cannot print, then maybe you had better turn on the print-server, if you are at home. If it is your, or worse, someone else's business, then you had better make sure that it all works, all the time, under all conditions. Including a sudden, catastrophic, power failure or theft of the hardware.

Linux is not windows. There are many ways of setting things up. With linux, they are all under your complete control, but you need to do your own research to decide which is the best model or way of doing things for your circumstances. Then just do it. If you realise it doesn't suit you, then re-do it better.

dhcp or static? It's up to you. They both have their advantages and disadvantages (otherwise there'd be only one way of doing things). You have to make a choice, and no, I cannot tell you which one will be "the best" for you. Your circumstances and needs are different from mine.

I like static IP's, but then I run a small network of 6 PC's, at last count. My workplace (maybe 1500 PC's) is running "locked down" windows (joke), and also uses static IP's, and that's their choice and presumably that works for them.

Zeroconf works for you? Then good. Go for it.

@ acid_kewpie:
You have no idea how old I am. I am ancient