• muusemuuse@lemm.eeEnglish
    11·
    5 days ago

    I use both of these systems daily. They have some issues but are just fine for me. Honestly, they are just opposite extremes and I repeat that. They each chose a side.

    Whereas windows makes me scream. It’s absolute horseshit that pretends to claim some middle ground that makes no one happy.

  • miellaby@jlai.lu
    24·
    6 days ago

    The post refers SSHFS which is based upon FUSE, a very neat technology in the Linux kernel which allows a non-kernel develloper - says a python developer-to turn anything into a hierarchy of files and folders, that you can access and modify with your regular local applications. When I says anything, I’m dead serious, FUSE may turn the whole internet into a fake browsable tree of local files on your system. On windows, you have to write a fake disk driver to mimic a fraction of the feature. I don’t know ios but I guess Apple wouldn’t never allow such a wizardry by design.

  • green@feddit.nlEnglish
    37·
    7 days ago

    Wouldn’t you just use AFS, CEPH, NFS, or 9p?

    I really don’t want to be that guy, but isn’t SSHFS (FUSE) actually a terrible option when compared to an actual file-system? MacOS isn’t really missing out on much there.

    The most painful part of MacOS (which makes it downright unbearable for me) is that system configuration files are XML. It’s an absolute nightmare.

    • Synestine@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      25·
      7 days ago

      SSHFS uses SFTP which is built into SSH, so no server to install. Its not as fast as NFS, but requires no setup. For something small like a home lab, that is a big advantage.

      • utjebe@reddthat.comEnglish
        9·
        7 days ago

        This. Surely not the fastest way to get content from/to a remote computer, but it just works as soon as you enable sshd.

    • Limonene@lemmy.world
      19·
      7 days ago

      SSHFS is very mature. I use it for administering several home servers.

      It works so well that they added a mode where some users can have SFTP only access (without SSH shell) so you can set up shared directories. It was easier to set up (for me) than CIFS or NFS.

    • cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
      20·
      7 days ago

      SSHFS is secure and works well over the internet. If you only want to access it over the LAN, then NFS is a much better option.

      • qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website
        1·
        7 days ago

        For some (most?) of us, we don’t have ssh access open to the world, so everything is over a VPN. So I can just use NFS over WireGuard which afaik is fairly secure, if you trust your endpoints, and works great over the Internet.

        • cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
          3·
          7 days ago

          I’ve never had good luck with NFS on a high latency connection. SSHFS still works fine even if the server is on the other side of the planet.

          • dan@upvote.au
            1·
            6 days ago

            NFS should work well enough on high latency connections - it was designed back when it was fairly uncommon to connect to a server over dial-up.

            It’s definitely possible that SFTP is more optimized than NFS though.

  • Ephera@lemmy.mlEnglish
    38·
    7 days ago

    I have this problem with Android. Google has turned the filesystem into unusable garbage, so you’re lucky, if you can launch a gallery app with a file path and it allows you to actually go through the images in that folder.

    And of course, that’s with a local file path, so the situation is completely hopeless when your images are on a network share. Unless the gallery app itself implements the network protocol, you’re out of luck.
    Wanna guess how often that happens? Yeah, it simply doesn’t. Even if it’s theoretically just a library, when you build it into the gallery app, that dev has to continually maintain and test it.

    • renzev@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      2·
      5 days ago

      SSHFS actually works perfectly on android, just needs root. Here’s the app I use.

      It’s funny how the README calls it a “VERY bad solution”, but so far it’s the only remote filesystem tool I’ve seen on android that could be described as anything close to usable.

      • mittorn@masturbated.one
        1·
        5 days ago

        @renzev @Ephera it does not work good, because on android you have to mount sshfs 3 times to become it accessible for apps. Just little option to add 2 bind mounts and maintain it would solve fs access issues, but now manually doing it in root shell is not easy

        • renzev@lemmy.worldOP
          1·
          5 days ago

          Hmmm interesting. I’ve never had issues with that. I just mount it once to a mountpoint in my shared storage and it just works. Probably a ROM-specific thing.

    • mittorn@masturbated.one
      4·
      7 days ago

      @Ephera @renzev android fs is just sucks. You cannot share folder with other app because of gargage sepolicy. You can share folder descriptor to bypass mount namespace, but selinux will prevent accessing it until set to permissive mode. And android does not provide way to patch sepolicy for user.

      • Ephera@lemmy.mlEnglish
        6·
        7 days ago

        I mean, thanks for the suggestion, but it doesn’t seem to be open-source, so that’s a hell no from me…

        • Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works
          3·
          7 days ago

          Fair enough, I’ve been using it for like 10 years 🤷‍♂️

          You also didn’t specify anything about open source in the original comment lol

          • Ephera@lemmy.mlEnglish
            3·
            7 days ago

            Well, it was more of a rant, I wasn’t exactly asking for suggestions. But you making a suggestion was perfectly fine anyways. I do just have opinions on proprietary Android apps.

          • goldfndr@lemmy.ml
            2·
            7 days ago

            Ah, someone with experience with Solid Explorer. I’m hopeful you might be a power user.

            Long ago, I looked into it, but was dissuaded because the details views therein seemed to waste vertical whitespace. An absurdly small font, close to the bottom of the icon to maximize empty vertical space, was used for details (at least datestamp, I think).

            Is that still the case? Have they added a method to increase the font size of the details without also increasing (or perhaps simultaneously decreasing) the filename’s font’s size? I couldn’t find one when I tried it last.

            If there’s an interview with the creators wherein they extol the virtues of vertical whitespace within an item, or if some reviewer has done that for them, I’d love a link or two to read about it, see what I’m missing.

            I’m sure the functionality is great. It’s the presentation I didn’t like. But perhaps there are unintended consequences of a compact layout…

            • Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works
              1·
              6 days ago

              Haha depends on what you mean, this is the default view I believe just zoomed out (pinched, rather then swapping to the compact view, which gets rid of the timestamp)

  • letsgo@lemm.eeEnglish
    27·
    7 days ago

    Also Windows: “Ask your network administrator for access.”
    Me: “Well I’m my own network administrator so what questions do you want me to ask myself”?
    Windows: “Enter network username and password.”
    Me: There is no network username or password. Sod it, I’ll bung them on an external disk.

    • AllOutOfBubbleGum@lemmy.worldEnglish
      15·
      6 days ago

      That’s a security quirk. Microsoft reeeeeally doesn’t want you to do anonymous SMB anymore, and with every version of Windows, Microsoft has made is more complicated to get it working like that. It’s probably still possible, but easier just to make a quick local user account and assign it read/write permissions to the share. Samba on Linux can still do it without as much fuss, but I’ve long since just accepted the extra step.

        • AllOutOfBubbleGum@lemmy.worldEnglish
          3·
          6 days ago

          I would say not much. If it’s your own personal LAN, and only your devices are on it, and you’re not hosting super sensitive data, then I wouldn’t personally be worried. Just depends on your risk acceptance.

          Edit: But if you are hosting sensitive data on an untrusted network, then definitely require a user with a strong password. Also, SMB3 and higher supports encryption (both in Windows and Samba for Linux). Encryption isn’t enabled by default, though. So keep that in mind. Easy to setup on both Windows and Linux.

  • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
    32·
    7 days ago

    I just wish both these platforms would get some modern remote desktop support built in. Remoting into Mac/linux vs Windows desktops feels like dealing with tech from completely different time periods.

    Thank god most of my Linux remote work is ssh on the cli.

            • sporkler@lemmy.world
              11·
              7 days ago

              it may be the current political climate of the country I’m living it, but kernel level remote access makes me feel inherently less secure. Don’t get me wrong, I never intend to give up my dumb terminal as my only way to use my computer either.

              • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
                4·
                6 days ago

                Sure. It risks introducing vulnerabilities. It needs to be implemented very carefully. I think a built in version, with security in mind, is a lower risk than relying on users to implement their own solution, and risk them picking the wrong one or setting it up incorrectly.

                Every user convenience introduces vulnerabilities. The users are the weakest link in every system. It’s a balancing act, and one I don’t think Linux has ever balanced well for usability. But server core has shown there’s no reason for the service to be on by default. There’s much more dangerous Linux features that are switched on by default configs, like root logins and password authentication, so let’s not pretend Linux has ever taken a hard line on this.

                • sporkler@lemmy.world
                  4·
                  7 days ago

                  I wasn’t trying for any ‘gotcha’ moment or anything, my paranoia is just particularly high these days. I apologize if my open rambling about my personal distrusts has caused you undue stress.

          • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
            2·
            7 days ago

            Yeah, I know. Same on Windows Server Core I believe, but the option is in there to enable it.

            I admit I don’t know the technical details well enough. But I know the user experience difference is ridiculously bad trying to remote into Linux. My workflow now is mostly using my tablet and remoting. If Linux had better Remote Desktop protocol, it’d also be my go-to for a desktop experience. Right now, if I can’t use the terminal app for something, I’d rather just remote into a Windows box than feel like I’m using a computer from the 90’s with Linux Remote Desktop options.

            • AugustWest@lemm.eeEnglish
              8·
              7 days ago

              In the old days we just used X over SSH (xforwarding) and only sent the single application over, no desktop need by running on the host (well technically client as X is backwords).

              I know the user experience difference is ridiculously bad trying to remote into Linux.

              It isn’t. There are lots of tools for this, including using RDP. It is really easy actually. It is a graphical front end tool on KDE.

              The “bad” part is that the user must already be logged in and the desktop opened because that is how linux works.

              Speaking of modern: I usually just use moonlight for streaming and sunshine for hosting between machines that are on the same network because it is so simple and available in Fdriod for Android devices. You can share apps or the desktop.

              You CAN configure wake on lan and run a script to auto log in a user (with moonlight) if you wanted to use it with a machine that is off, but I can agree that that is a few extra steps.

              • Abnorc@lemm.ee
                2·
                7 days ago

                I remember in college we had access to a Unix box via these computers that remoted into it. I don’t know the technical details, but I was able to log in with my account and it was presented as a GUI on my end. We used No Machine as the client if that’s relevant. I wonder how something like that can be set up.

              • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
                2·
                7 days ago

                I actually just tried moonlight/sunshine this past week for gaming, and I was disappointed. The interface is missing critical components that Steam link has. Makes it almost useless unless you have a keyboard attached in many cases.

                But I hadn’t thought of using it for Remote Desktop into Linux. Sounds a lot better than No Machine. Thanks for the tip.

                • AugustWest@lemm.eeEnglish
                  1·
                  7 days ago

                  What is missing? I have had no issues with it.

                  But you can use Steamlink as a remote desktop tool too. I do it all the time with my steamdeck in desktop mode.

            • SteveTech@programming.devEnglish
              1·
              7 days ago

              Windows Server Core still has a window manager, just all it does show a command prompt very similar to the one in the usual Windows recovery environment.

              • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
                1·
                7 days ago

                K. And what massive vulnerabilities have been introduced by that? I’ve seen no articles or sources backing that claim.

                • SteveTech@programming.devEnglish
                  3·
                  7 days ago

                  I never mentioned vulnerabilities, I just wanted to point out that, RDP doesn’t really work without a graphical session, Windows Server Core gets around this by being a graphical session (although very basic).

                  Also I’m not sure, but I don’t think Windows handles RDP on the kernel level, it’s just nicely tied in with DWM and doesn’t have to deal with the multitude of window managers on Linux.

                  Handling RDP on the kernel level does sound like a bad idea security wise, but there should be a better way.

  • LovableSidekick@lemmy.worldEnglish
    15·
    7 days ago

    Isn’t MacOS based on a Unix kernel? Or did they evolve away from the core principle of treating everything as a file?

    • stoly@lemmy.world
      24·
      7 days ago

      You’re correct. Also you can sync files across all devices, built in. The meme is a bit fart sniffy.

      • MehBlah@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        6 days ago

        I knew that one was bullshit or probably just simple ignorance. I use ssh and scripting to control my macs. Its easier than using ios depressing GUI tools.

        • stoly@lemmy.world
          1·
          5 days ago

          Put things in the iCloud folder. You can optionally sync to any other device that is signed in to the same account.

    • Jankatarch@lemmy.world
      6·
      6 days ago

      Macos kernel is a mix of freebsd and mach. It’s half UNIX from BSD side.

      It’s currently growing up like a teen wanting to be business major cause they resent their artist dad for being an artist or a math teacher instead of working in finance.

      “Oh what does my dad do for living? He is like that redhat linux, in a way.”

    • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      19·
      6 days ago

      Samba (and NFS) require you to set shares up on the server’s side. With sshfs, you don’t need anything but a ssh login to your server. Black magic

    • renzev@lemmy.worldOP
      1·
      5 days ago

      Because it’s unbelievably broken. Every time I try to set it up it’s always a huge pain, and in the end it’s extremely flakey at best. I’ve only ever seen the SMB protocol work as expected with its native windows implementation, third-party implementations like sambda are awful

    • absGeekNZ@lemmy.nzEnglish
      3·
      6 days ago

      Also samba can’t distinguish between /foo/ and /Foo/ which is a pretty small issue… except when it isn’t.

    • cubism_pitta@lemmy.world
      1·
      7 days ago

      Mac OS version of Fuse is a commercial software. That said there are other alternatives.

      I use Samba over my LAN and ZeroTier to create a sort of VPN Samba on MacOS is a bit slow (heads up) I have not yet figured that issue out but this setup worked for me for a number of years. (and manages to handle my time machine backups over LAN)

      Any more since most of my remote access needs fall under development I user Visual Studio Code and their Remote connections system (which is pretty fucking good and “only” requires an SSH connection… and a decent amount of RAM on the remote host)

      There are a lot of things to beat up an MacOS over… but honestly getting more technical windows users to from Windows to Mac WILL help Linux adoption. Getting into the underpants of MacOS is very similar to linux (you just don’t HAVE to have fun unless you want to)

      • serenissi@lemmy.world
        3·
        6 days ago

        Wait what? The default kernel doesn’t have a fuse fs, inbuilt or as kext? Didn’t know that. I thought all modern un*ces come with fuse.

        Edit: It seems apple is introducing something called LiveFS similar to (but incompatible) fuse. Couldn’t find much docs and I’m not gonna read xnu sources rn.

        underpants of MacOS is very similar to linux

        no it’s not. xnu is very different from linux, with even design philosophy far apart. The userland (and bsd interface aka positive syscall world) is similar to *bsd’s, not typical linux userland. Only real similarity is launchd because systemd drew inspiration from it.

        • cubism_pitta@lemmy.world
          2·
          6 days ago

          The FuseFS thing; yeah It was crazy to me because I must abandon the metaphor by saying…

          MacOS IS Unix AND Linux is really just trying its damndest to BE Unix

          Both MacOS and Unix are POSIX… while Windows requires either WSL OR if you are old school cygwin to achieve POSIX compatibility

          So to a degree they are the similar…

          but like finding a dick on the internet you are always reminded by MacOS that Unix != Linux :) (I love Linux all the same)

          • serenissi@lemmy.world
            3·
            6 days ago

            I do not get what you’re trying to say here, sorry.

            On the note on similarity I mean macos userland is closer to bsd than linux. Also for normal usage freebsd is much different in nature than usual linux (free)desktop though they share same desktop shells which isn’t the case for macos either. And while most people aren’t writing with posix api everyday, many (most?) paradigms translate to win32 so that the crt from mingw works well. It matters only if you’re working with msvc toolchain, and then you’ve to adapt to windows-isms.

            Personal anecdote: yes I find macos more familiar than windows even though I use windows vm often and macos rarely. At least the command names are same/similar… So your point stands, my point is more on the Aktually side.