• fartsparkles@lemmy.world
        0·
        15 days ago

        NFS is insecure out of the box so typically tunnelled over TLS (not seen it done over SSH since why bother if there’s SFTP?).

        I’d rather a desktop app or a terminal app for remote file systems than install a kext on a mac. Like, kicking stuff out of the kernel was an excellent idea.

        FUSE would knock over my old mac anytime a transfer was longer than an hour or two. Not to mention the vulnerabilities poorly developed or maintained kexts introduce.

          • 2xsaiko@discuss.tchncs.de
            0·
            15 days ago

            Eh, works for me for home use. I just have it running on the same machine as the NFS server. The only thing that bothers me is that I can’t use normal Kerberos for SMB, I’d have to set up Samba AD. Boooo

            I even managed to make it work with just mDNS as I’m currently in a horrible network I don’t control.

        • 2xsaiko@discuss.tchncs.de
          0·
          15 days ago

          NFS is insecure out of the box so typically tunnelled over TLS

          Set up Kerberos, it will also give you correct file ownership and then you don’t need any additional tunnel.

        • macniel@feddit.org
          0·
          15 days ago

          for that I then just use VPN/Wireguard if I really need to access my home server remotely off-site.

    • cubism_pitta@lemmy.world
      0·
      14 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
        0·
        14 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
          0·
          14 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
            0·
            13 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.

  • enumerator4829@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    0·
    15 days ago

    I have a mac I use for some specific tasks. I’ll agree the Apple is, ehh, Apple.

    But mounting network fileshares is dead simple. My SMB share pops right up, authentication works fine, the user interface for it is fine. If I wanted to use it remotely, I’d just export it over my tailnet.

    ’sshfs’ is good for short stints of brief use, but ultimately it breaks on a protocol level as soon as your socket dies, on any OS.

    • SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      14 days ago

      Both the default network mounting options in Gnome and KDE won’t let applications access the network drive. You have to mount using SMB4k or cifutils if you want application access. I’ve not used MacOS in over a decade but that functionality works seamlessly in windows for SMB shares. It’s honestly a minor reason (among others) I went back to windows.

    • toynbee@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      14 days ago

      Unless supporting a Windows client is an absolute must, I’ve found NFS shares to be far preferable. I’ve experienced quicker speeds, fewer disconnections, and less corruption. The only downside I’ve encountered is the client hanging if the server goes down, but there are solutions to that.

      I will admit I’ve never done anything beyond simple network shares with NFS, so it’s possible that there are use cases (besides involving Windows, by which I also mean Active Directory) is better.

  • Korhaka@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    0·
    15 days ago

    Used sshfs at work the other day for SFTP. Wanted to do a recursive search and it didn’t seem possible with filezilla on my Windows laptop. Started my Linux VM and sshfs followed by find/grep to get the info I needed.

    • Aux@feddit.ukEnglish
      0·
      15 days ago

      WinSCP is a much better client. Also use WSL2 instead of VM.

      • Korhaka@sopuli.xyzEnglish
        0·
        15 days ago

        I do other things with the VM as well, I would rather just use desktop Linux all the time.

  • OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world
    0·
    15 days ago

    I have a pc I use as a dedicated file server, and a MacBook which connects seamlessly to that file server via my home WiFi, and I stream movies easily. My AppleTV and iPad stream from it too, no problem. I don’t look like that guy on the right. Am I doing something wrong?

  • kibiz0r@midwest.socialEnglish
    0·
    15 days ago

    Running both Linux and macOS on a daily basis… They’re both completely competent, and have basically the same amount of rough edges once you dig in and get your hands dirty. If you find one of them impossibly difficult, it’s a skill issue.

    • beirdobaggins@lemmy.world
      0·
      15 days ago

      The meme is talking about sshfs.

      For smb, the share would need to be created first.

      Sshfs is pretty nice because it will give you access to all of the files that on the server that you have permissions to access.

  • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    0·
    15 days ago

    I just use NFS tbh, I’m really sketched out by smb’s access controls on Linux and how it masks files, plus all the weird windowsy overhead, with NFS it’s either read only or read write and it’s a whitelist system, I have to add IPs or subnets manually to make them accessible and that works for me.

    • porl@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      15 days ago

      Sshfs isn’t the same as smbfs if that’s what you’re thinking. It has nothing to do with how windows does files.

  • tetris11@lemmy.ml
    0·
    15 days ago

    I was stumped. I found some duck to to enable.this, but holy fuck was it painful to install

  • jaybone@lemmy.world
    0·
    15 days ago

    I’ve been considering rsync

    I need to run git operations from a laptop (on a vpn) but I can’t build from the laptop, I can only build from a host that is only accessible on the vpn.

    So I can only git pull / git push from the laptop, but I can only build / run / test from a remote host.

    Linux on both sides. What’s the best solution here?

    • Aux@feddit.ukEnglish
      0·
      15 days ago

      If you can SSH into a remote host, you can git push to it directly from your laptop.

    • PoolloverNathan@programming.dev
      0·
      15 days ago

      Detach the laptop’s head, then git clone from it over SSH on your build server. When you’re done, git push will update your laptop’s branches, then you can git push origin the relevant branches on your laptop.

    • Eager Eagle@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      15 days ago

      Why can you not run git on the server? If it’s a credential thing, you can forward it through the SSH connection.

  • datendefekt@feddit.org
    0·
    15 days ago

    My SO has a MacBook, and I thought no sweat, I’m sure I can just autofs or something onto the NAS so that the photo storage is always there. I was wrong. Why dies it have to be such a pain? So clunky, so unreliable.

    • QuarterSwede@lemmy.world
      0·
      14 days ago

      Because SMB works reliably on macOS. Never had an issue. I also prefer Cyberduck and actual sftp so … take my word with a grain of salt.

    • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      0·
      15 days ago

      Why dies it have to be such a pain?

      Intentionally bad, if you buy Apple you’re supposed to use iCloud and never, ever leave the ecosystem.