Hacker News Reader

Comment by jmclnx | Hacker News Reader

Interesting, I alaways assumed sshfs was part of OpenSSH, learn something new every day.

Also, looks like sshfs used in Slackware is abandoned.

A quote from the link, I wonder if this project will be the 'one':

>If you would like to take over this project, you are welcome to do so. Please fork it and develop the fork for a while. Once there has been 6 months of reasonable activity, please contact Nikolaus@rath.org and I'll be happy to give you ownership of this repository or replace with a pointer to the fork.

I also wonder if it was abandoned due to the RHEL re-orgs like what happened to bluetooth.

View on HN

It does seem like a good fit for the maintainers of openssh. I too had thought it was key linux ssh infrastructure.

> I too had thought it [OpenSSH] was key linux ssh infrastructure.

As a side note, OpenSSH is quite independent of the Linux ecosystem. It is developed as part of OpenBSD.

openssh-portable is provided as a standalone software package that is broadly POSIX-compliant.

>openssh-portable is provided as a standalone software package that is broadly POSIX-compliant.

Yes, glad the OpenBSD folks do this. Linux people could learn a lot from OpenBSD Developers (looking directly at Wayland).

I think Wayland is a different beast because unlike SSH, it involves the kernel.

I kinda doubt it, SSH already have SFTP and SSHFS is .... quite honestly a tool that has no business existing.

It's a neat trick but it's always going to be something that someone bolted on to a solution because they didn't want to deal with a proper file server. Part of the appeal might be that NFS (3 or 4, take your pick) is still the best we've been able to come up with and neither is really that great for basic installation. Still SSHFS is a mess to deal with in a production setup. Some of the messiest production systems I've de-tangled over years have frequently been relying on SSH and SSHFS to do stuff assumes a permanent connection.

SSHFS provides enormous value precisely because it doesn't rely on configuring a file server or elevated privileges. It's convenient, secure and performs well. The ability to create ad hoc mounts for any remote location I can access via SSH is awesome (though I prefer rsync or scp for file transfers).

But relying on SSHFS in production... Yeah, that's insane.

I use sshfs at work to mount some AIX Dirs on my Linux Workstation, very convenient.

NFS has too many shortcomings for me to take your answer seriously. SSHFS is a very useful tool in the right places; if it's a hammer and you have a screw, don't use it.

sftp doesn’t make it easy to copy files from one place to another on an ad hoc basis while developing, using the shell operations you’ve got to hand.

No it’s a horrible fit. OpenSSH is focused on a high quality, secure implementation of a rather complex protocol. And OpenSSH is not a core piece of Linux infrastructure any more than say gcc is. These projects serve other, greater ends. A FUSE driver is a bunch of baggage that is poorly suited to be maintained with it.

Given than fusefs provides FUSE support on BSDs, it seems more than "a bunch of baggage", given how useful it is.

I don't think the person was intending to say it's not useful, only out of scope.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com