You just gotta think different

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.
- 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.
  
  I run both NFS and SMB shares. My SMB shares for Windows (very specific application) and MacOS, and NFS for my Linux hosts.
  I’m kinda on the fence between them. Both work fine, but the devil is in the details.
- Yeah, my personal experience is my Synology drive is easily available through Finder ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

<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.
  
  Yeah. You also can edit mounts via GUI tools instead of manipulating fstab. You can configure shares without opening smb.conf. You can do all these things, now if we would just communicate how user-friendly a Linux distro can be that would be nice. Right now it's still a wild goose chase to find instructions how to do things graphically and therefore accessibly and more safely, as every search first and foremost results in tons of (often time different) CLI commands. And there are too many in the community who counter with disabling or elitist bullshit, as if someone who isn't into RTFM for every click somehow can't be allowed to flip a switch. It's exhausting to fight against these sentiments, especially now where apparently a lot of people suddenly realize that Microsoft and Apple might not be the best idea to trust. People who just want use and trust their computer.
- My biggest problem with Linux is that there are 8 ways to solve any problem. Some of these are distro specific, and all of them are THE definitive way to do it depending on who you ask. This comes up for me most when I want to make a change to something or do it again on a new machine.
  For adding another network drive, for example I think oh it's called samba right and open the terminal and type in samba help. The response is: command not found do you want to install "samba-dc"? Okay so not samba. Oh that's right I edited a file. Now was it smb.conf? No wait maybe it was fstab.
  It is getting easier as I get more familiar, but I have to wrap my head around every new thing that I want to do. It's no wonder people don't have the patience.
  
  I know this is just an example, but it is kind of funny.
  User somehow sets up SMB shares on their network. Then is confused by the client?
  
  That's what you get for dabbling with computers. Of course there's many ways to do one thing. There's many ways to do one thing with Lego, for fucks sake. Do you really expect computers to be simpler?
- Well, GUIs are even more distro-specific, so it's either generalisability or user-friendliness. It doesn't mean that guis don't have the option.
- Somehow people still believe CLI commands are superior
  Something that only a pure enduser would say.
- this meme once again shows a Linux terminal command (that only works on specific distros)
  sshfs only works on certain distros? Oh you mean the apt install part.
  the button in the File Manager to add the network share to your left sidebar.
  I just browse to the network location I want and right click on the view in the file manager and select "add to places". It will be there on the sidebar until I remove it. Yes it is there after a reboot.
  
  But sshfs also works across the internet....quick and dirty file access from anywhere in the world. If you can SSH to a machine, you can get a mountable file system.
- How is sshfs source target distro-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 use nfs shares for this use case.
- me too but the connection is tunneled in an ssh channel so it's similar
  
  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.

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.
- Yes. I run PopOS and Hackintosh on my Thinkpad, use the new M4 Mac Mini as my main desktop (with hopes of Asahi Linux support in the future), and run unRAID on my completely overpowered Ryzen 5900x NAS, where I have a Win10 LTSC VM for the rare occasion I need to run software that only runs on x86 Windows.
  I would prefer to only use Linux if I could, but MacOS is very competent and far superior to Windows in my opinion. I have never had any issues accessing my unRAID shares on it
- Lol. Yeah.

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.
- 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.
- I mean, AutoFS itself can be pretty painful
- 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.
  
  My issue wasn't SMB, but automounting the share. As in, turn on wireless, the share is available. I'm coming from Linux and am pretty clueless with MacOS.

- It's "sudo yum".
  
  yum's old and busted; dnf's the new hotness
- Imagine using pacman instead of emerge
  
  Imagine using emerge instead of cmake
- Wait, is linux gendered or pacman?
- Yeah this post is bull shit!
  I just spent the last 2-3 hours building SSHFS from source for Proxmox & Debian, it really sucked!
  Ps: Fuck gLib2.0
  
  Wait what, why? I'm out of the loop. What's up with Proxmox and glib 2.0?
  
  Sounds like self inflicted pain. If you absolutely needed the latest why are you simultaneously running debian again?
- Personally I would put doas xbps-install but I like to make my memes relatable to the wider linux community ;)
- Yay!!

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.
- I love how android uses ext internally, but doesn't support ext drives natively.
- I can't even mount my Android storage to my computer without some unreliable MTP FUSE program.
- @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.
  
  Thats an interesting server. Also, did you mean garbage or garage?
- 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.
  
  @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
- Solid Explorer on Android is great, supports all kinds of protocol connections
  
  I mean, thanks for the suggestion, but it doesn't seem to be open-source, so that's a hell no from me...

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

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.
- I like using No Machine
  
  That’s also my go-to on Linux, but it’s still clunky as hell compared to RDP.

<chuckles> We use dnf here.
<tips hat and runs>
- You mean 'tips fedora'?
  
  would you believe me if I said I meant bowler cap? or maybe a top hat?
  (and this is where I find out that Hannah Montana linux uses a top hat for a logo, lol)
- This comment doesn't render for me on the Thunder client
  
  chuckles We use dnf here. tips hat and runs
  Reformatted, they used the alligator thingies which probably became HTML for your client

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.
- 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.
  
  What's the risk if done on local network?

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
  
  yeah!!!
- There is a mac os port of fuse that works fine on intel macs, but requires a mighty amount of twiddling on apple silicon macs

What are you talking about? SMB on MacOS is crazy reliable!
- 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.

Can you not just brew install sshfs on a mac? (Assuming you’ve already installed Homebrew).
- No, but you can do this:
  
  brew install macfuse brew tap gromgit/homebrew-fuse brew install gromgit/fuse/sshfs

macFUSE
I don’t know what you expected, that is a huge hack.

Isn't MacOS based on a Unix kernel? Or did they evolve away from the core principle of treating everything as a file?
- You’re correct. Also you can sync files across all devices, built in. The meme is a bit fart sniffy.
  
  What’s the best way to do the file syncing?
  
  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.
- 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."

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?

Windows: ☠️
- I mean, if your server is using samba to share: net use * homeserver\share {password} /user: {username} /persistent: yes /savecreds
  
  Windows terminal commands are an abomination before the site of the LORD.
  They were wise enough to include a mount alias though so if you pretend you're on Linux it'll work well enough.
  No idea if it supports SMB or ssh though, but it works with NFS
  
  mount -t nfs3 server:/srv/nfs/exporteddir E:
  Mounts an NFS export to the E drive.
- It's pretty easy. Just right mouse click the network and Map Network Drive. Follow prompts. Success
  
  Windows does not have native SSHFS support
  
  @jaschen @SpaceNoodle or some unknown error only disappearing after reboot (especially with winsshfs/winfsp-like drivers)
- I've used this in the past (on the client side) https://github.com/winfsp/sshfs-win
  
  Works just as seamless as on Linux, has amazing GUI options too.

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.
- WinSCP is a much better client. Also use WSL2 instead of VM.
  
  I do other things with the VM as well, I would rather just use desktop Linux all the time.

TIL about sshfs and life got a little bit nicer

Why nobody mentions samba?? That is the only thing I knew
- 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
- Or nfs
- 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
- Also samba can't distinguish between /foo/ and /Foo/ which is a pretty small issue.... except when it isn't.

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 respect 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.

Bruh just use smb

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

2025
Not using Plan 9 for distributed computing
ISHYGDDT
- I use distributed storage for all my files using pirate bay
  
  So you're storing your shit at my house?
- fun fact: Windows uses 9p for bridging the Windows and Linux filesystems with WSL2. the devs had excellent taste in protocols.

Isn't is fuse? Why then it doesn't work on darwin?
- 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)
  
  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.

TIL.

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.
- Sshfs isn't the same as smbfs if that's what you're thinking. It has nothing to do with how windows does files.
  
  Nah I was thinking as opposed to the more common SMB in general, and that it just weeks. I should've clarified.

Ah yes... secure shell for fuck's sake

Doesn't rclone allow for this? (Not sure how well it would with tough)

- If it does, I would sure love to know as SMB is a lot slower on Mac when you start getting a lot faster network speeds.

Lmfao

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?
- If you can SSH into a remote host, you can git push to it directly from your laptop.
- Yes, rsync is a good choice
- 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.
  
  I can’t run git operations on the server.
- Why can you not run git on the server? If it's a credential thing, you can forward it through the SSH connection.
  
  It authenticates with a yubikey.

Haha I can personally attest to it being slightly more complex than that on Linux, but true for OSX.