Slashdot Mirror
Mount Remote Filesystems via SSH
eval writes "Ever wanted secure access to your files at work or school, but didn't have the necessary permissions or were thwarted by a firewall that allowed ssh access only? The SHFS kernel module allows you to mount directories from machines to which you have shell access. File operations are executed as shell commands on the server via SSH (or rsh). Caching keeps it reasonably fast, and remote commands are optimized based on the server's OS."
Woohoo! Now I can mount my linux system from the windows 98 network at my college and play Adventure! w00t! --LordKaT
I assume that this will be the first step to just using SSL-encrypted NFS. Oh wait... Aren't there operating systems that already do that? -- Brian 'Of course it runs NetBSD!'
I love SSH its one of the best ways deliver stuff to your server I am running mine with Mac OS X. I like the speed and dependibility, and also its more secure then FTP. In the Matrix Reloaded they use SSH to access the buildings power which I find to be very accuarte.
Now my web hosting company will probably take away ssh access. Thanks Linux hackers!
If you don't have permissions to use network connections other than SSH, are you going to have permissions to mount a filesystem on the computer? The computers at my school (a high school) won't let you access explorer (or at least you're not supposed to). I can see its use for machines at your job, though, because there you would be able to mount filesystems.
Big deal! I've been doing this for close to a year now, with lufs (http://lufs.sf.net). It's not really the easiest thing to automate but it sure works for day-to-day computing.
This is a good idea, however there is one problem with the way that the problem is presented above:
If you're at work or school, are you really going to be able to insert a kernel module on the machine you're on? Generally I would think that you do not have sufficient permissions on the local machine.
A new feature is just a bug waiting to happen. And vice versa.
Just type fish://user@host in your Konqueror location bar ;). It works great!
DVD Ripping, Divx, VCD, SVCD under Linux
Wouldn't using the sftp sub-system be better than regular shell commands? Or is this what the sftp sub-system does itself?
now exacly what is wrong with SFTP?
Putty (windoze ssh client) comes with a secure FTP client, and OpenSSH comes with a SFTP server.
It's a bit of a hassle to navigate (no command completion), and you have to copy the files to/from your local system, but still... this doesn't really add any new functionality.
LUFS has done this for more than a year, and not just through ssh. I use it all the time and it works great.
avfs and lufs are much more common solutions to the "mount userland filesystems" problem. Yet, avfs makes it easy to construct your own whatever-you-want filesystem.
..margerine box at the bottom? Is it what the programmers ate during the creation of shfs? Like that apocryphal Java-drinking sessions at Sun? Does margerine have magical caffiene-like properties too?
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
This sounds like a bad idea to me, why allow remote mounting of filesystems, when ssh has a file transfer protocol built into it?
On any *nix with ssh, you can use either sftp or scp, and even on Win32 platforms, you have WinSCP , secure file transfers without the need for remote mounting.
The advantage of this approach is that adding a new filesystem type implies modifying a user-space daemon, not the kernel. LUFS includes, besides sshfs ftpfs, gnomefs, and gnutellafs and a few others
The Raven
This seems to be beta quality code. Thus you might want to try Secure NFS via SSH Tunnel, which provides, accoding to the author Secure NFS (SNFS) via SSH2 tunneling of UDP datagrams, as suggested in the SSH FAQ.
A religious war is an adult version of a fight over who has the best imaginary friend
is with the firewalls that block port 22 (ssh) egress entirely.. Especially when they leave 25 (telnet) wide open! Stoopid BigCorps!
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
An ssh connection forwarding the remote port 139 to 127.0.0.1:139, and then doing smbmount to //127.0.0.1/<mountpoint> - works great, and is practical considering Samba is often already running on the remote side.
sig sig sputnik
Create VPN with freeswan or ppp over ssh, mount remote host from VPN.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
You only need to load it on the client machine.
This mounts the file system at the OS level. That way emacs, vi, gnome programs, etc. have access to the filesystem, not just KDE.
PHP is the solution of choice for relaying mysql errors to web users.
I have been looking for something like this, however my computer is a windows 2000 box, and the computer I connect to is running ssh on RH8. I don't see any that do this for windows yet.
Moreover, the SHFS project website admits that it's "partially based" on FTPFS; but the FTPFS website says it's now obsolete and recomends using LUFS instead.
So the question: why did this merit an article? SHFS is just a proof-of-concept project for some kid's operating systems class, and I'll bet that despite the warning ("Warning: This is beta quality code. It was not tested on SMP machine. Backup data before playing with it!") tons of Slashdotters -- most without any kernel-hacking experience -- will have downloaded and perhaps installed it before I finish typing this post. This is dangerous.
So -- if you want to play with (and implement your own, it's remarkably easy!) fun filesystems, try LUFS or FUSE instead.
We've had something superior to this for about five years now, it's called NFS, the Novell Files Shared. Get with the times people.
Haven't there already been other projects with similar design goals, like the Self-certifying file system? The authors of SHFS say it's a hack, which has a few drawbacks -- e.g., in generic write operations on non-Linux machines, a separate write() system call is used for each byte! Can anyone comment on the relative merits/demerits of the alternatives?
So, is there any way to get to access to linux directories in winxp other then SMB? I take it that this story is for linux linux only stuff.
I know it gets asked a lot but I run into all kinds of random linux / networking questions from time to time and I just have no good place to discuss it. Where can I find such a haven.
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
What is the difference between mounting using this system and the normal 'mount' command ? Is is just more security at the server end or for the network as a whole.
At the office I'm working at (contract job) they are extremely anal retentive. They disallow most outgoing connections, SSH included. People are pretty much limited to web browsing. Not a problem, however, since they allow a secure connection on 443. I just configured my router to redirect 443 to 22 and I can connect to my server.
I think a better implementation of this might use the sftp protocol on the server side. This has been recently implemented with SSH v2. It's a subsystem within SSH (sftp-server) that supports all the common filesystem operations (open, close, read, write, seek, stat, etc...).
This is the protocol that scp uses to read and write files and is already part of ssh.
SANITARIUM!
It would be nice if this worked with Macos X and apple-type file systems. SSH works well on Macos X and I could do with an alternative to webdav and netatalk. Yes, I know that there are "issues" with apple file resources, but I wish they would just *disappear into* the shell so I didn't have to worry about them :-)
ah well. I can dream.
h.
Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
we've been doing this with Plan 9 since 2000.
/net), optionally posting a 9P service descriptor for the new file system as /srv/service.
from the ssh man page:
Sshnet establishes an SSH connection and, rather than execute a remote command, presents the remote server's TCP stack as a network stack (see the discussion of TCP in ip(3)) mounted at mtpt (default
We've had something superior to this for about five years now, it's called NFS [faqs.org], the Novell Files Shared. Get with the times people. A horse and buggy can get you to the library....I'll take the Porsche Boxer. A birch canoe can get you to the other side of the Atlantic...I'll take a muti-level cruise ship. A pile of twigs and some stones can start a fire...I'll use my bic and some gasoline. A gilrfirend can pleasure you to no avail...I'll use my Judy X-321 Prototye Stimulator with Turbo Suck 2000.
The authors might not have admin access to the server to configure secure NFS. Or for that matter an installed compiler to install samba and tunnel it over ssh. Just shell access and instructions on using pine. And a sysadmin who will need a shot of brandy after hearing about students/employees running a remote filesystem. He might even be right, considering how NFS lets clients pick a userid to access files or uses inode numbers as handles.
There are a lot of projects like this. Linux used to have term and later a user-level PPP daemon to forward socket calls over a serial line, when the admin could have easily installed the real thing. At one point I had to write a rather complicated tool to forward incoming requests from the internet to a host inside an http-only firewall because that was the only way to test it with a client running on a cell phone.
Now if someone wrote a daemon to run PPP (or PPPOE) over an HTTP proxy, we could all just use it and stop reinventing the wheel.
I have used LUFS http://lufs.sourceforge.net/lufs/ for a few weeks and I have found it to be a very nice solution for LAN file sharing. It does not perform so well over high latency links, and I am not yet completely convinced that it behaves well under heavy IO loads although I have not proven the contrary either. So in a nutshell, LuFS is good for general purpose file sharing in a LAN environment and it is giving me entire satisfaction - goodbye Samba !
It's called SNFS. The method is different, but the idea is the same; mounting drives over ssh. I played with this over a year ago.
http://www.math.ualberta.ca/imaging/snfs/
I set up LUFS last night, and blithely opened a Nautilus window to a mount-point I'd created (to a VERY remote SSHFS-mounted machine). Big mistake.
I had forgotten, of course, that I had Nautilus turned on to do all its previews, subdir counting, etc. on local files - which of course it was treating this mount point as. And I cursed gnome-vfs2 for not automatically sensing the "remoteness", by reading the list of system-wide mount points and detecting which filesystem was handling the directory into which I'd gone.
KDE faces a similar problem, ultimately. Until we see "kdesh" or some sort of LD_PRELOAD to offer ioslaves to traditional UNIX utilities, there will be a rift between the well-integrated solutions that KDE and GNOME offer, but which don't interact with lower-level utilities, and the kernel/hybrid solutions which don't provide information to any layer higher than they are (or worse, which are ignored by that higher layer, because of NIH syndrome).
SHFS is not the wrong answer. If it has caching and LUFS lacks it, maybe some of that code will migrate into LUFS. That's the entire point of open source, people - let the better project win, not just the more established one. But ultimately, neither project is the answer I favor, until the people at work on these various layers of VFS switching start to accept that other peoples' work may be running on the same system their code is.
Nothing worth doing is worth doing today.
This idea seems somewhat ineficient and more complicated than it has to be... why not simply tunnel port 139 via ssh and mount the remote filesystem via SMB?
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
so if you put this in Knoppix, eg, supposing you were in a Microsoft only workplace, could you like mount your /~ac/ on your home machine? How would you do that?
--ac
Couldn't the same task be accomplished via a script that calls scp foo bob@fred:~/ssh bob@fred -t "rm foo"/etc?
Currently, and indicated in the FAQ above, you cannot tunnel UDP. You can, however, tunnel NFSv3 so long as you make NFS run over TCP. This is precisely how you can tunnel NFS. Here is how I do it:
Server:
Put "/nfs_share_dir 127.0.0.1(rw,insecure,root_squash)" in
Ensure you are running Linux's NFS user server and portmap
Client:
rpcinfo -p remotehost
ssh -f -l username -L 3643:localhost:643 -L 3049:localhost:2049 remotehost.com sleep 500
mount -t nfs -o tcp,port=3049,mountport=3643 localhost:/nfs_share_dir
The system works well but as you can see, it can be cumbersome. The "mountport" changes, hence the need to run rpcinfo -p. I have been told you can force a consistent mountport however. Then you worry about tunnels and whatnot. It works, but its hairy.
Because of the above, I rejoice for having found LUFS's SSHFS, and now wish to try SHFS. With SSHFS, I merely run SSHD on my remote machine, and mount it like so:
lufsmount sshfs://username@remotehost.com
Compare that one step to all of the above for NFS.
Those slashes should be forwards
camera://
ftp://
http://
fish://
Which is a very good thing since it works on all the platforms KDE works on without having to have 5 or 6 different "kernel level" implementations of every filesystem out there.
A kernel should be small. Why pile everything into a kernel if it can be handled in user space?
Or they just wouldn't install the module.
Yeah, that'd pretty well make sense.
If you don't want to mount the filesystem, the bash completion project works quite nice with scp. By adding the public key on your computer to the server's authorized_keys file, you can use tab completion when traversing directories or copying files remotely. As a bonus, you get a lot of tab completions with other programs too.
If you run Windows, try this: WinScp2 Allows you to access your files via scp but with a windows manager (just as though you mounted the drive)
- Get Http tunnel. You have to install it inside the network with the proxy, and in another machine on the internet (outside that lan).
- Create a tunnel from the first machine to the ssh server of the second machine (http tunnel creates a socket).
- Do ssh-keygen on the first machine, and copy the
.ssh/indentity.pub file from the first machine to .ssh/autorized_keys on the second host. That way you can login without password.
- Now configure both machines to do PPP over ssh. I wrote the explanations here , look at the comment with a subject saying "PPP over SSH". It's in spanish, but you can translate it with babelfish, and at least you can get the scripts from there. If you don't manage, look in google for "ppp over ssh" or "firewall piercing".
- Configure the first machine to use the second host as the default gateway (through this new ppp network device), and configure the second machine to do NAT for the first one.
There you go, you have unrestricted access to the internet through the most firewalled network in the world, and through a proxyYou need to have root in both machines, but is worthwile, trust me! ];>> The first time it could look a little bit complicated, but afterwards you can just create a script to do the whole thing, so next time you'll only have to do "./create_tunnel" on the first machine to do the whole process.
DVD Ripping, Divx, VCD, SVCD under Linux
It looks like the module is only installed on the client. The server only needs to have sshd running, and that's what makes this so nice.
I'd like to use my local editing tools to edit html and cgi sources on the machine that hosts a site. This allows me to use all my macros and syntax highlighting and so forth, and protects me from keyboard lag.
I just downloaded this stuff and tried it, and it worked perfectly on the first try on a test machine here.
Most importantly, this stuff doesn't require installing anything weird on the remote machine. I obviously can't go installing kernel modules or anything on the hosting machine, so this stuff is perfect for me. I believe the requirement to install weird stuff on the remote machine is the reason I wasn't able to use LUFS; someone correct me if I'm wrong.
To: user+bash@host.com
ls /usr/bin
And get the result back by email. The tricky part was to do (insecure) copy: cat piped to uuncode etc.
To paraphrase: it's not really the easiest thing to automate but it sure worked for day-to-day computing
I think there are some unnecessary critism in this thread. shfs is exactly what I had been looking for for quite some time. I saw the article on nfs over ssh. This is sort of there, but requires knowledge of iptables, etc. Indeed, it took an entire article to explain how to use it. However, this package is very simple to use ! And it serves the purpose of being able to mount remote drives over ssh. After trying it out, I did have some suggestions which I plan to post to the developers.
Damn. I have been using tramp for the last few years to do this with emacs. I'll have to try this and lufs out to see which method I like better.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
I guess I don't get it. If you can open an ssh connection to the remote machine, why wouldn't you just tunnel PPP over the connection and have full VPN networking between the local box and the remote box?
I've been doing this for years.
http://home.mn.rr.com/richardsons/sw/pppssh.tar.gz
From the README:
This is poor man's VPN. Just as effective as the expensive kind, but costs less. And you can set it up in minutes. All it requires is the ability to ssh into the remote machine. Then it tunnels PPP over the ssh connection to provide full network connectivity.
Two sample scripts are provided: frostyppp ipcroeppp
You are expected to understand routing and the concept of tunneling and to create your own version of one of these scripts. If you don't understand routing, then use Windoze and the expensive VPN box or software that your IT guys probably want you to use (because they don't understand routing and tunnelling, either).
OS's trying to be all things to all people is stupid
I have plan9 machines on my network because they do very powerful things in such simple ways.
It would be like using scissors to cut the grass.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Boobies!
But the problem is that "writing the equivalent kernel modules" would take a lot longer.
.ogg vorbis files).
The fact that KDE code uses the "large amount of KDE support infrastructure" is what makes it easy to build a new I/O Slave (such as fish:// or cooler yet cdaudio:// which is a virtual mount of your cd audio as named
So it's not a shortfall of KDE developers because KDE developers only have so much time, and building the equivalent kernel modules will be much more time consuming.
As noted by another poster, the main point of this type of thing is to be able to access your remote shell accounts from home. Not necessarily the other way around. However, I'd like to note that I've been working on a version of Knoppix that includes the LUFS lkm and userland deamons, the next step is to get LUFS to automatically setup key-exchange when knoppix boots (set the remote server as boot options), then use the remote server as your /home/dir in Knoppix. I haven't gotten it working perfectly yet, but when it's done I should have a secure environment available on any PC.
put the what in the where?
is punching my way in through the VPN, then using VNC, then to access files, either setting up a passive ftp server, or simply sending it over a im service.
Is anyone aware of a similar utility that exists for *BSD systems?
make a stab at being polite in showing the advantage of whatever you're talking about.
slashdot is a free ad space. most of the cool things i find are not from topics, but from comments. of course 90% of the comments insist that theirs is better than the competition, sliced bread and complimentary presedential blow jobs all rolled together, and that everyone else is a fop, while neglecting to mention the prealpha status and lack of docs.
like so much in the world, balance is key. humility helps too. by all means, be heard, but you're just a jerk if you have to shout.
As long as the purpose only makes sense inside the window manager environment...
/mnt/lufs/proto/host/path
/mnt/lufs/proto/user:auth@host/path)
I'm talking about the cdburning drag+drop, digital camera browsing, play-list "mounting", etc.
These things make sense inside the window management space because they are useful abstractions for use inside a graphical file manager. However, they are probably not too useful for the general unix environment (i.e. command line, generic VFS calls, some of which may have no translation... fcntl on a candidate for including on a blank CD, whaaaa?)
Some of those abstractions are rather nifty. Others (like SSHFS) are probably overkill or not low-level enough to be truely useful to be implemented at such a high level.
Question... does LUFS support automatic protocol in the path? I'm talking about doing something like this:
Which might come back with an error if you need to ssh-agent, or klog, or something like that. (I wouldn't advocate
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
You can make your camera automount through, well, automount, the usb-storage module and vfat.
There is no need for LUFS in that case. It is already transparent.
Mounting audio CDs has also been done (both as a discrete filesystem and UFS layers), however there are certain "issues" which then become clear why LUFS may not be the right option. For example, it is currently not possible (and isn't possible really according to the standard) to arbitrarily seek into a track reliably. Some drives allow for sector positioning, but not all. This is because audio tracks do not contain positioning information in each block. Jitter can be expected, and the file metaphor could be somewhat broken on a less-than-perfect CD when two consequetive reads of the same audio chunk aren't identical; one has to think of some clever caching schemes in that case.
It is much easier to read and deal with problems when processing the entire track at once from beginning to end. Hence cdparanoia. Making it into a file may seem interesting, but it isn't incredibly useful (since it's not reliable, and that implication shouldn't be implied by forcing the file system metaphor on top of it).
The same can be said of making virtual encoded versions of audio available through the same interface. The stream cannot be completed at arbitrary seek points; OGG's bit allocation protocol makes breaks at certain (but not obvious) points for framing information. MP3s (unless at constant bitrate) have the same issue. The file really has to be already be encoded in a straight shot, kept in RAM, and then it can be read arbitrarily.
So why not write a script to do that? It's not hard; there's only about 14,000 projects on freshmeat that do exactly that, CDDB tie-ins and all.
The filesystem metaphor shouldn't be forced onto abstractions that don't support arbitrary seeking, reading, writing, truncating, updating, locking.
Otherwise, why make it into a filesystem?
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
If you had enough computing power to run the Matrix, you could sure as hell break a little 128 bit key.
Anyone needed crypto that can stand up to that should look into FlameCrypt 5. It is nearly complete; I'm using a 512 megabyte key in Linux, Mac OS X, and Windows with perfect MD5 matches. It's faster than other cryptographic methods. Pre-orders will be taken soon (15 days or so).
A FlameCrypt5 shell server is under consideration; it would most likely be a free upgrade.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
OR... a pipe or socket.
/dev/uld/cdda:scd0.raw /dev/uld/cdda:scd0.a
/dev/uld/cdda:scd0.a
/lib/modules/streams/vorbisenc.so -oq=5,oggwrap /dev/uld/cdda:scd0.a
/dev/uld/cdda:scd0.a > "KMFDM - Waste.ogg"
But as to not being seekable, etc: that's why we have the distinction in the first place!
For things that aren't like a file, they shouldn't be a file. We need appropriate metaphors for things that are not flat and seekable.
Duh character devices aren't seekable, that's the POINT. In fact, upon further reflection: the reason why a CD-filesystem is a bad idea is because only one process can use it at a time!!! (^_^;;;) Making some resource a filesystem implies that it can deal with at least concurrent access, right? I'm not saying you can't do it, but I don't think it's a good idea because it doesn't really get you anything special.
After further reflection, the cd-extraction "device" almost begs to be a character file. Send it an ioctl (with a silly little command line util), then start slurping it into oggenc. The "cdparanoia" device... you might use it like this:
$ cddactl --extract 1[1:30]-3[4:00]
oggenc [ some stuff ]
In this case, cdda:scd0.raw is the file that accepts the ioctls, and cdda:scd0.a is a magically created char device corresponding to your request to read a range from the CD, and data will only start appearing from there once all other requests have been fulfilled (otherwise you get EAGAIN on read()). I pretend that uld is a filesystem exported by a magic kernel module that allows user-space libs to do some grunt work and provide device files as needed.
Perfect way to queue up a bunch of jobs; just spawn a bunch of oggencs in parallel on the file requests, and let the kernel wake up the right process to do it.
Or you could do something evil like this:
$ streamctl --push
Then:
$ cat
That is definitely in the spirit of Unix!
And whatever happened to STREAMS? That would be a perfect way to take cdparanoia + ogg and roll it into a OS abstraction.
I'm talking about generic "uber-character devices" for asyncronously and syncronously available data, and a way to get at their individual ioctls without having to write whole C programs.
Some kinda standard for that would kick a large amount of ass, especially if its easily accessible from user space.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Let me revise my comments on the idea of a cdda-filesystem. I realized I don't disagree really with what you said.
.wav files (or .raw files, depending on mount options), both with information from the TOC and possibly CDDB.
/dev/cdrom which allow it to seek within the track, etc. A mount option would transform them into block files capable of seeking but only reading in sector sized chunks.
It would make sense if it was implemented as follows:
Mounting the cdrom through cddafs presents the user with a listing of
Each file is a character device that when read begins extracting the data via CDDA from the appropriate track AND reading other tracks simultaneously engages some complex locking and wait-queueing to prevent contention and increase performance.
Each character device allows it to receive ioctls similar to
File oriented-software wouldn't choke on that (but the driver wouldn't have to work too hard)
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
A few years back I did software-support, and ended up remotely logging in to our customer's machines, often over a firewall.
.tar.gz.uu file and either using cat & script to transfer them, or cutting and pasting between windows. What a pain!
When the firewall only allowed telnet access and I needed to transfer files, I'd either end up building a
At that time, I started to work on a tool to allow me to transfer files over telnet. What stopped me was an ethical problem - if a company only allows telnet through their firewall, and not ftp, then they don't want people tranferring files through the firewall.
I wonder if these extensions to ssh will run into a similar problem. That is, companies not allowing ssh access through the firewall because it can be used for more than just login sessions...
If I edit a file with the name /scp:user@hostname:localfilename, then this will be automatically fetched via scp. Heck, if I use Emacs' built-in eshell, I can do things like /scp:user@hostname:localfilename ~/incoming
cp
and other basic operations. Of course, directory listings and editing also work.
The package to use is tramp, it is part of the CVS Emacs, but also available separately.
data transfer can be optimized a lot by using rsync or something equivalent.
btw a cute idea (but based on HTTP rather than SSH) is Zero Install
Tell your web hosting company to use rssh http://freshmeat.net/redir/rssh/32214/url_homepage /rssh
Maybe I should just tunnel somehow?
Berto
You know, there should be some pretty useful applications to be created if you can mount things remotely. Servers in Thailand should be especially popular.
I just installed this, width poor results. I am able to mount the remote file system, although the performance is slow, compared to ssh directly. A question though, what is the benefit of running the filesystem like this. Is the program executed on the server or the client?
think before you write, it'll save me moderator points.
Oh, whoops. Misunderstood
or the reverse to copy a file to the client machine.
I've used Alliare ColdFusion Studio (which Macromedia now owns) and Macromedia Dreamweaver to do web development. These tools worked GREAT for remove development in either Windows or Linux/Unix systems. In Windows, you just mapped your drive or used CF Studio or Dreamweaver's configuration to copy files when you save them. OR, which is what this story really reminds me of, is the use of SSH. Yes, I had to copy files back and forth over SSH when I wanted to see my changes, but Dreamver had this feature to work the SSH and automatically copy files back and forth all with the simple use of the project file navigation window. The user, me, never felt like I was working on a remote system, but felt like I was doing all the work locally. My co-workers were amazed that this feature was buried deep in the applications.
There is a fairly straightforward and intuitive HOWTO at http://www.math.ualberta.ca/imaging/snfs
I use this at work to access files across the firewall. Very useful. Much better than any other VPN hacks I've seen. Definitely worth a look.
Do it for da shorties
sshnet doesn't present a remote filesystem as local
plan9 does that all over but certainly not via a remote machines SSH server afaik
What one could do though it sshnet into the remote machine (M) and utilise M's TCP stack.
Now all network commands for this process group only will use M's TCP stack.
Then we use ftpfs to present M's ftp service as files in our tree for this process group.
No kernel modules required
And any processes that get forked from our group will have those those remote files available via SSH and they won't have to even know anything about ftp or ssh or squat didly about anything except manipulating files.
Putting something in the kernel that is manipulated by third parties seems a bit too trusting for my liking.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
bloat the kernel, like ALSA the usb device drivers and NVidia's binary driver, what are you going on about, do you know what bloat is?
I don't think the extra hooks would bloat the kernel that much, infact they would introduce less bloat than your suggestion.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.