Occasionally XKCD makes a valid point. One example is

http://xkcd.com/732/

The latest example is

http://xkcd.com/949/

One insightful poster commented

"I suspect Randall often uses the webcomic to make people talk about 
some issue he's having to find out a solution. Not that I'm against 
that, I really want to find a better way of transferring files."

After reading several dozen forum posts, it seems nobody has a really 
good solution for doing this.

Post a reply to this message

On 12/09/2011 09:41 AM, Invisible wrote:

> The latest example is
>
> http://xkcd.com/949/
>
> After reading several dozen forum posts, it seems nobody has a really
> good solution for doing this.

I guess the problem is security. If you have two machines with an 
Ethernet cable between them, it's really quite easy to transfer files 
from one to the other. The trouble is, if *you* can connect to my home 
PC to retrieve a file, then ANY RANDOM INTERNET USER can connect to my 
PC and obtain that same file. (And possibly others, if I configured it 
wrong.) Problems get far worse if I'm expecting you to *send* me a file...

Then of course there's the fact that both PCs have to be switched on at 
the same time. That's probably only an issue for large files. Logically, 
there is only one way around this: a 3rd party server. That immediately 
means that some 3rd party has to pay for your file transfer. That means 
that either you pay them, or they spam you with adverts.

Me? I have a web server. (It costs money.) So I can use that. Safe in 
the knowledge that I can post a URL here, and I won't have half the 
POV-Ray forum DDoSing my home PC off the Internet. But if you don't 
already have something like that set up... oh dears.

Oh, and if you're not trying to transfer a file between *your* PC and 
another, but trying to explain to your auntie how to transfer a file to 
your uncle... suddenly "oh dears" doesn't even cover it.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> After reading several dozen forum posts, it seems nobody has a really 
> good solution for doing this.

  You can thank Windows for this. Traditionally in the unix world
transferring files from one computer to another has been one of the
most basic features (and it's the reason why there are so many ways
of doing that, including rsync, rcp, scp, ftp, sftp, wget, and so on).
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.)

  The other traditional method to send files is through irc. This has
worked in the unix world for something like 20 years. Given that irc is
mostly dead nowadays (it's too "old-fashioned") most people don't even
know what it is. This works perfectly in Windows too, if only irc was
still popular there.

  One of the most common modern variants of this, one which also works
easily in Windows, is skype. Of course many people refuse to use skype
out of principle (the same kind of principle as avoiding facebook).

  If you are regularly transferring files to someone, just make him install
skype.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 12/09/2011 08:14 PM, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> After reading several dozen forum posts, it seems nobody has a really
>> good solution for doing this.
>
>    You can thank Windows for this. Traditionally in the unix world
> transferring files from one computer to another has been one of the
> most basic features (and it's the reason why there are so many ways
> of doing that, including rsync, rcp, scp, ftp, sftp, wget, and so on).
> 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.)

I don't know about "impossible". It's actually pretty simple. By 
default, *every* Windows PC acts as a fileserver. If you have two PCs on 
the same network, open Windows Explorer, type the name (or more likely 
IP address) of the other machine. The syntax "\\machine\c$" works by 
default. Type in the administrator password for the remote machine. You 
now have access to the entire local filesystem.

This is the default configuration. You don't have to do *anything* to 
make it work. It's worked since Windows NT 4.0, if not before.

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...

This obviously completely fails over the Internet. Or at least, you 
better *hope* it fails. Otherwise your Windows box is liable to get 
rooted very shortly...

(You can, of course, set up proper shared folders to give specific 
people specific access levels to different parts of the filesystem. And 
unlike editing a million HTTP-access files or twiddling text 
configuration files for an FTP client, it's as trivial as right-clicking 
the folder you want to share and saying "share this". Of course, it's 
only really useful if network-wide user authentication is set up, which 
is a whole *other* topic... And, again, it's designed for the LAN, not 
the Internet.)

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.

>    The other traditional method to send files is through irc. This has
> worked in the unix world for something like 20 years. Given that irc is
> mostly dead nowadays (it's too "old-fashioned") most people don't even
> know what it is. This works perfectly in Windows too, if only irc was
> still popular there.

It's news to me that IRC is "dead". Indeed, I still use it from time to 
time.

...

I'm talking on an NNTP server, aren't I? o_O

>    One of the most common modern variants of this, one which also works
> easily in Windows, is skype. Of course many people refuse to use skype
> out of principle (the same kind of principle as avoiding facebook).
>
>    If you are regularly transferring files to someone, just make him install
> skype.

Doesn't have to be Skype. Various IM clients have this function too. The 
problem, generally, is the inexplicably slow transfer speeds.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

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.

I would yet have to hear of any admin who only has local console access 
to the servers he administers.

That's why you normally keep root passwords a secret ;-)

> 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.

Depends on the server's configuration regarding X11. But you do know 
that X11 is not the only way to log on to a Unix machine, don't you?

> Doesn't have to be Skype. Various IM clients have this function too. The
> problem, generally, is the inexplicably slow transfer speeds.

Not inexplicabe if you're on an ADSL line. Hint: The "A" is for 
"asymmetric" ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On 12/09/2011 09:39 PM, clipka 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.

Well, yeah, if I'm on a default Windows box and I've got network access 
to a second default Windows box, I can log in to it interactively, I can 
access the entire filesystem, the entire registry, read the event log, 
run device manager on it, and a whole heap of other stuff. Without 
having to configure *anything*.

> That's why you normally keep root passwords a secret ;-)

Windows installations at home generally don't do this. (I blame MS, not 
the user.)

>> 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.
>
> Depends on the server's configuration regarding X11. But you do know
> that X11 is not the only way to log on to a Unix machine, don't you?

Sure. But no other protocols are configured by default either. And with 
good reason: not turning stuff on by default is more secure.

>> Doesn't have to be Skype. Various IM clients have this function too. The
>> problem, generally, is the inexplicably slow transfer speeds.
>
> Not inexplicabe if you're on an ADSL line. Hint: The "A" is for
> "asymmetric" ;-)

I know how fast my upload speed is. And it isn't this slow. :-P

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

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

Post a reply to this message

Am 12.09.2011 22:55, schrieb Orchid XP v8:

>>> Doesn't have to be Skype. Various IM clients have this function too. The
>>> problem, generally, is the inexplicably slow transfer speeds.
>>
>> Not inexplicabe if you're on an ADSL line. Hint: The "A" is for
>> "asymmetric" ;-)
>
> I know how fast my upload speed is. And it isn't this slow. :-P

Don't forget that with Skype you typically have a voice stream to be 
transmitted at the same time.

Post a reply to this message

On 12/09/2011 10:36 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 12.09.2011 22:55, schrieb Orchid XP v8:
>
>>>> Doesn't have to be Skype. Various IM clients have this function too.
>>>> The
>>>> problem, generally, is the inexplicably slow transfer speeds.
>>>
>>> Not inexplicabe if you're on an ADSL line. Hint: The "A" is for
>>> "asymmetric" ;-)
>>
>> I know how fast my upload speed is. And it isn't this slow. :-P
>
> Don't forget that with Skype you typically have a voice stream to be
> transmitted at the same time.

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.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 9/12/2011 12:14, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> After reading several dozen forum posts, it seems nobody has a really
>> good solution for doing this.
>
>    You can thank Windows for this.

Nah. You can thank NAT for this.

> Traditionally in the unix world
> transferring files from one computer to another has been one of the
> most basic features (and it's the reason why there are so many ways
> of doing that, including rsync, rcp, scp, ftp, sftp, wget, and so on).

Note how all of those require a running server on a public IP address.

> 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.

It just requires you not be behind a NAT.

>    The other traditional method to send files is through irc. This has
> worked in the unix world for something like 20 years. Given that irc is
> mostly dead nowadays (it's too "old-fashioned") most people don't even
> know what it is. This works perfectly in Windows too, if only irc was
> still popular there.

All the chat programs still have this, including messanger and all (afaik) 
the other chat clients like jabber and AIM and such.

>     One of the most common modern variants of this, one which also works
> easily in Windows, is skype. Of course many people refuse to use skype
> out of principle (the same kind of principle as avoiding facebook).

The principle being "I don't route my phone calls through random third-party 
computers, especially those who haven't given me permission to use their 
public computer as a NAT bridge."

For example, you can't use skype in google because google has enough 
bandwidth that half the world would be routing their skype calls over 
google's links if you did.

>    If you are regularly transferring files to someone, just make him install
> skype.

Or any IM client, really.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message