You must log in or register to comment.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Might be something polkit-related? But yeah, you are right about it not working.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Only tangentially related, since I don’t think NBD uses FUSE, but may I present Harder Drive
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.
You… want remote desktop on kernel level?
The protocol, yes.
Odd, I specifically find the concept of this disturbing.
Yeah, I know suggesting UI and user experience improvements spooks Linux diehards.
<rant>
Love how this meme once again shows a Linux terminal command (that only works on specific distros) instead of what most users would want (which would work on almost any user-friendly distro), the button in the File Manager to add the network share to your left sidebar.
Somehow people still believe CLI commands are superior, meanwhile people who just want to get Linux-unrelated shit done (that isn’t IT-related either) don’t understand what exactly happens here and won’t be able to permanently add the share to their file browser this way. Y’know, the way most people would use it in their daily workflow.
Where Apple fails in proper software integration, Linux fails in feature communication. Instead of properly integrating features (Apple) or providing/focusing on doing things intuitively and accessibly (Linux), both want the user to start thinking their way. And I fucking hate it, it prevents Linux from becoming more popular.
</rant>
You can click your way to the same feature in Nautilus. No need to even see a terminal.
How is
sshfs source targetdistro-specific? That would work anywhere. What would confuse the user is GUI, because we have about 5 major DEs and 10 major file managers that usually don’t even work with sshfs without extra plugins.We also have ~5 major package managers (which all work differently) with usually 20 different package names depending on the repo, and you chose to ignore that part.
I ignore that part because it doesn’t pose a problem for the user. If you’re on a distro X, you know what command to type to install a package using its package manager. For the same reason, OP didn’t care to explain how to power on your computer. Or do you expect a meme to be a comprehensive guide on how to install sshfs on all major distros? Really? Maybe the real problem is that some people don’t understand what a meme is.
