I'd go samba
this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2025
0 points (NaN% liked)
Self-hosting
3348 readers
1 users here now
Hosting your own services. Preferably at home and on low-power or shared hardware.
Also check out:
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
rejetto hfs.
Two possible issues w/that w.r.t my use case:
- not in official Debian repos -- not a show stopper but definately points against it for installation and maintenance burdons across migrations
- apparently read-only access for users. This is fine in simple cases where I would just be sharing with others, but a complete solution enables users to share with others on the same server by uploading. Otherwise everyone with a file to share must run rejetto hfs.
Nonetheless, I appreciate the suggestion. It could be handy in some situations.
I didn't understand the point number two. You can set up whatever access you want for the users. If the option you want does not exist - there is a plugin for it, I'm sure.
Guess I would not want to maintain a webpage so web servers are nixed
You could still use WebDAV. It's simple and works with most file managers.
sFTP. If you have a machine with a ssh server, it has sFTP capabilities.
Indeed i noticed openssh-sftp-server was automatically installed with Debian 12. Guess I’ll look into that first. Might be interesting if ppl could choose between FTP or mounting with SSHFS.
(edit) found this guide
Filezilla is also a popular option
I use filezilla but AFAIK it’s just a client not a server.
Yes, I meant as a client. I thought you were looking at options to hook up guests to a openssh-sftp-server
By the life of the party by bringing crossover cable, allowing you run ethernet directly from one laptop to the other for some intimate social networking. Keeps the LAN uncongested for everyone else.
Nice ethernet hardware will detect if you cable is not a crossover cable in this situation and reverse the pin mappings for you.
Over WiFi? Pass around physical media. Nothing ruins a LAN party like someone saturating 90% of the connection to transfer ISOs.
If it's a dedicated file server, with its own network, then the obvious choice is Samba.
It's all fun and games until someone brings a USB 2.0 thumb drive.
The file could transferred over the LAN and the network de-saturated faster the file could be copied off a USB 2 drive.
I haven't seen a USB 2.0 drive in 15 or so years. So I'd say you're pretty safe... And even if that were the case, it's still preferable vs hogging the connection for a single file.
USB transfer only affects you with slow speeds until the transfer is done. Network transfer affects the entire party with slow speeds until the transfer is done.
It's the obvious choice if you're having saturation issues, even at 2.0 speeds.
Samba on a Linux user meeting? lol 😅
I mean, yeah?
NFS is great and all, but it's not compatible with everything out of the box. Generally, samba is compatible with everything. Linux, Windows, Mac, whatever.
Samba is the obvious choice because it's compatible with everything out of the box.
Wonder which distros they passing
The kid in me hopes its Slackware, but the loser in me hopes its Arch. 😂😂😂
I vote for passing around a dirty, unmarked thumb drive
Is PirateBox still a thing? IIRC that was the exact use case for those 🙂
Edit: nvm, https://piratebox.cc/ shut down in 2019. I'm old.
That’s pretty cool
Is there any reason to not just use samba or NFS?