Raf Czlonka <r...@linuxstuff.pl> wrote: >On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 01:52:14PM BST, Harry Putnam wrote: >> I don't understand why a few people have passed over ssh as being >> overkill. > >SSH (Secure Shell) - you don't need security on home-only network.
That at least explains the millions of bots out there. Of course you need security on a home-only network, even if it is not accessible from the internet. And given that at least the Debian box appears to have direct internet access, you should definitely care about security, especially since IPv6 is not years away anymore. >> Its easiest of all to setup. (well excepting the nautilus suggestion) > >IMHO, it's not - dozens of options for both the server and client. >You simply mount the NFS share and it's transparent to the system. Of course, and you don’t have to set up that NFS share at all, it simply appears? Please, be realistic. SSHFS is as simple as: client:# apt-get install sshfs server:# apt-get install sshd client:# sshfs user@server:/dir /mountpoint SSHFS also doesn’t have problems if the connection suddenly drops and its default settings are secure. At the same time, you authorise both the server and the user on the client, something that you might want to do, especially if you are using encrypted hard drives. >> I mean with fuse and sshfs, then it acts much the same as nfs far as >> enduser experience. > >FUSE as it name suggests is in user-space, NFS is supported in the >kernel. You don't have the overhead. I don’t think this overhead is even noticeable on a reasonably modern system. Best regards, Claudius -- Real programs don't eat cache. Please use GPG: ECB0C2C7 4A4C4046 446ADF86 C08112E5 D72CDBA4 http://chubig.net/ http://nightfall.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111023173928.32459...@ares.home.chubig.net
