You must log in or register to comment.
Isn’t MacOS based on a Unix kernel? Or did they evolve away from the core principle of treating everything as a file?
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.”
You’re correct. Also you can sync files across all devices, built in. The meme is a bit fart sniffy.
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.
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?
Bad enterprise admins running companies without auth, MS getting the blame.
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.
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
Also samba can’t distinguish between /foo/ and /Foo/ which is a pretty small issue… except when it isn’t.
Or nfs
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>2025
>Not using Plan 9 for distributed computingISHYGDDT
fun fact: Windows uses 9p for bridging the Windows and Linux filesystems with WSL2. the devs had excellent taste in protocols.
I use distributed storage for all my files using pirate bay
So you’re storing your shit at my house?
And I am thankful
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.
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)
I think you mean “sudo pacman” not “apt”, wow. fake linux (gendered diminutive).
Yay!!
Imagine using pacman instead of emerge
Imagine using emerge instead of cmake
Wait, is linux gendered or pacman?
no, no. saying the meme was made by a fake linux boy/fake linux girl/fake linux kid, because they forgot to say sudo and used the package manager from probably debian (apt), rather than the one arch uses (pacman).
I was being a tedious linux elitist asshole as a bit.
Ah, you’re all good. I feel rightfully shamed by my past self from giving up slackware in the early 2000s to go almost exclusively Ubuntu specifically for the package manager. I used to would have felt my adult self was a fake linux kid as well.
well, crucially; it was a bit. the actual that-person is an insufferable piece of shit. but like not in the same ways as im an insufferable piece of shit.
My past self was also and insufferable piece of shit in a completely different way that my current self is. I don’t believe it is our use of linux that drives this particular personality trait as much as the underlying humanity that we share.
yes, truly: linux use is inextricably tied to humanity, and the beauty/horror of the human condition.
the great literary conflicts: man(in the old english sense that needed a prefix to gender it) against nature, man against man, man against ‘god’, and choice of linux distro.
I feel that what I wrote and what you interpreted are very different things, that having been said I sincerely wish I had written what you’ve responded to.
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
Sounds like self inflicted pain. If you absolutely needed the latest why are you simultaneously running debian again?
Sounds like self inflicted pain.
It most certainly is unfortunately. gLib2.0 is apart of the Debian main repository but for some damn reason I couldn’t pull it with apt.
Resulted in building it with meson but had so much trouble.
<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>
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?
But that’s what I mean, right? I found a guide on how to edit a config file, then after I’ve forgotten how it went, I try to run the client that does exactly the thing I want. I don’t have it installed, so I must not need to, but good luck finding the original guide. Idk, I just spend so much time feeling confused trying to get my dumb little project homeserver to do what I want.
I am not sure what to say, but maybe use something that already has done the work for you? I set up Open Media Vault 20 years ago and it has SMB shares built in. Ran it for 15 years with little to no intervention on my part.
Also, highly recommend keeping documents of how you set things up, including a link, if not a copy of the guide and the how and why you did what you did when making your own server. We do it on enterprise systems, I do it on home systems (if building from scratch).
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?
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.
I’m with you on this. I think a youtube / peertube channel providing GUI only tutorials could do quite well and would help to further the linux cause
I’m too lazy do it, but someone should
Yeah, for Windows vs Linux on servers the battle is already won. For desktops it’s more Windows vs GNOME, Windows vs KDE, Windows vs XFCE, etc.
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.
sshfs also works across the internet…quick and dirty file access from anywhere in the world.
I almost said that. It was my first thought. But then the people discussing it seemed kind of focused on local networks so…
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.
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.
Thats an interesting server. Also, did you mean garbage or garage?
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…
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
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…
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)
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.
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.
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.
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 never 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.
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.
This doesn’t work without a grapical session tho.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
K. And what massive vulnerabilities have been introduced by that? I’ve seen no articles or sources backing that claim.
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.
I like using No Machine
That’s also my go-to on Linux, but it’s still clunky as hell compared to RDP.
XRDP is fine when you get it working, but yeah there’s a little bit of setup involved
I’ve gotten it working plenty of times. Still doesn’t hold a candle to RDP.
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.
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.
Yeah, my personal experience is my Synology drive is easily available through Finder ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
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.
Lol. Yeah.
Doesn’t rclone allow for this? (Not sure how well it would with tough)
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.
TIL.
