Re: Distributing packages in small home LAN: Proxy server vs. Cache sharing
* Michael <codejodler@gmx.ch> [2007 Aug 27 20:50 -0500]:
> As for sshfs: Yes looks nice. Yet i see two arguable features. First, it's based on fuse and that needs special kernels IIRR so i would have additional dependencies. Second, who would need secure shell in a home or small office LAN at all ?
I installed the fuse package and it worked "out of the box" with the
stock Debian kernel. No additional dependencies were needed that I
could tell.
On the LAN only it is probably a rather paranoid solution. But now I
can access my desktop files *anywhere* with my laptop. There is also
the bonus of X11 forwarding and a secure login using ONE port, ONE set
of keys, and ONE set of configuration files. Much cleaner, IMO.
> NFS has some security disadvantages but it's simple to install, use, and maintain.
> And it has additional security features which you can enable, too.
I was using a version of NFS that updates to mount on the laptop kept
breaking. I switched to the kernel NFS server on the desktop and that
all went away earlier this year. I had no further complaints about NFS
except that it was not secure to expose to the Internet.
Aren't choices grand? Thanks to these Debian lists I have learned more
than I ever thought possible.
- Nate >>
--
Wireless | Amateur Radio Station N0NB | Successfully Microsoft
Amateur radio exams; ham radio; Linux info @ | free since January 1998.
http://www.qsl.net/n0nb/ | "Debian, the choice of
My Kawasaki KZ-650 SR @ | a GNU generation!"
http://www.networksplus.net/n0nb/ | http://www.debian.org
Reply to: