 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/12/2011 14:39, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I've never used Skype. But I've used various IM clients. And my point is,
> they all tend to be inexplicably slow to transfer files.
They're generally not transferring directly between machines, since your
machine is normally behind a NAT. There's a server with a public IP address
in between.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/12/2011 15:56, Darren New wrote:
> Transferring files in Windows is trivial. You RDP into the other machine,
Which works, btw, even through NAT, thanks to Torreno or whatever it's called.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/12/2011 06:20 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:17:02 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>> I'm not aware of any Unix system which *defaults* to letting remote
>> users access the entire filesystem if they know the root password.
>> Probably because it's a stunningly bad idea, unless the local network is
>> trusted. But anyway...
>
> Every unix system can do this with something like sshfs installed - on
> the client side only - and sshd running on the server.
>
> Jim
yep .. that's what I use to get/put files between my system and the pov
server ... both are "nix" machines. The ssh is just used to establish a
secure connection, but the underlaying protocol is ftp to transfer
files. BTW: there are windows versions of the the same tool set ...
stelnet, sftp (etc) that I used when I was exclusive on a doze box
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
> Am 12.09.2011 22:17, schrieb Orchid XP v8:
> > I'm not aware of any Unix system which *defaults* to letting remote
> > users access the entire filesystem if they know the root password.
> > Probably because it's a stunningly bad idea, unless the local network is
> > trusted. But anyway...
> To the contrary: Unix doesn't only let users who know the root password
> access the /filesystem/, but do /anything/ they like on the machine.
Except that most unix systems have been configured so that you *can't*
log in as root remotely. The system simply refuses to accept the login.
Anyways, that's besides the point of transferring files. Being able to
log in as root (remotely or not) has nothing to do with the ability to
transfer files from one computer to another.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> While we're on the subject, by default you can log in to any remote
> Windows PC that you happen to know the administrator password to. No
> special software required. Again, try getting X11 to let you do that.
> Good luck.
Did you know that the X windowing system was actually designed from the
very beginning to run remotely? Running it locally was just a "free" feature
on top of that.
In fact, it still acts pretty much like if it was a remote server. It's
just that rather than being physically remote, it just is being run on the
same computer as the user is logged in. (That's what the DISPLAY environment
variable is all about. You can log in to another computer, eg. using ssh,
and run an X program there, and it will show up on your screen, as long as
the DISPLAY environment variable is properly set. That's because X programs
don't really care where they are running and where they are displayed. It's
abstracted away.)
It's Windows that was designed to be a purely local system, and to which
remote running was patched in later.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:17:02 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> > I'm not aware of any Unix system which *defaults* to letting remote
> > users access the entire filesystem if they know the root password.
> > Probably because it's a stunningly bad idea, unless the local network is
> > trusted. But anyway...
> Every unix system can do this with something like sshfs installed - on
> the client side only - and sshd running on the server.
Anyways, sharing an entire file system is often overkill, if your goal
is to simply transfer one file to another person.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > Of course this requires for one of the computers to act as a server.
> > This is made difficult in Windows. (Yes, I know it's not impossible.
> > I didn't say that.)
> Transferring files in Windows is trivial. You RDP into the other machine,
> and use copy/paste just like in the file manager. Or you mount the share off
> the other machine. Or let RDP mount the share for you.
I like how to you everything in Windows is "trivial". Like using soft or
hard links (which, btw, I have still no idea how to do, regardless of your
assurances that it's very easy).
(If this so "trivial", why haven't I ever heard of this "RDP"? Yes, this
is the first time in my life I hear of it. And it's not like I haven't been
using Windows pretty regularly for the past 15 years or so. Contrast me
knowing about tools like rsync, rcp, scp and wget, which arguably are not
the most obvious things in unix either. What is the difference?)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/09/2011 11:58 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 9/12/2011 14:39, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> I've never used Skype. But I've used various IM clients. And my point is,
>> they all tend to be inexplicably slow to transfer files.
>
> They're generally not transferring directly between machines, since your
> machine is normally behind a NAT. There's a server with a public IP
> address in between.
Quite. And that presumably is where the transfer is getting throttled.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13/09/2011 08:22 AM, Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> While we're on the subject, by default you can log in to any remote
>> Windows PC that you happen to know the administrator password to. No
>> special software required. Again, try getting X11 to let you do that.
>> Good luck.
>
> Did you know that the X windowing system was actually designed from the
> very beginning to run remotely? Running it locally was just a "free" feature
> on top of that.
Yes indeedy. (I also know that they got the usual meanings of "server"
and "client" backwards too.)
Now I haven't tried it, but I'm told is approximately /impossible/ to
actually configure X so that you can access it remotely. Even though
that's its entire design goal.
> It's Windows that was designed to be a purely local system, and to which
> remote running was patched in later.
And yet, Windows is the one where I run a command, type in the name of
any networked PC, and I have remote access. By default. No special
configuration required.
(OTOH, doesn't X allow more than one user to log in at once? With
Windows, that's a special extra feature that costs $$$.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/09/2011 10:20 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:17:02 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>> I'm not aware of any Unix system which *defaults* to letting remote
>> users access the entire filesystem if they know the root password.
>> Probably because it's a stunningly bad idea, unless the local network is
>> trusted. But anyway...
>
> Every unix system can do this with something like sshfs installed - on
> the client side only - and sshd running on the server.
Yes, if you /install stuff/ you can do it.
My point is that Windows lets you do this by default. Nothing to
install, nothing to configure. It's the *default* configuration state,
unless you purposely changed it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
