On 2025-10-26 at 14:37, Hans wrote: >> I might be missing something here, why don't you use the SMB >> protocol? > > Well, I did not say, that I do not want to use it? I said, I do not > want to add an extra(!) protocol. > > Maybe I expressed myself not correctly. I just want to copy without > any change of the target windows system by using a commandline in the > shell. And looking for a syntax or a way, how to do it. In order to copy to a remote system, you have to interact with a program that's running on the remote system. If you aren't willing to set up - on the Windows system - a program that's intended for the purpose, you're going to be limited to the stuff that's built in to Windows. As far as I'm aware, that's SMB, which is - for practical purposes - also to say CIFS. Windows-to-Windows can do copying like that with a bare command (not requiring an explicit mount), such as xcopy C:\path\to\source.file \\remote\share\path\to\destination.file , as long as the credentials set up in the environment are valid for accessing the remote share - but even that, I'm nearly positive, effectively does an implicit mount of some type. (And it does use the SMB/CIFS protocol.) Under Linux, in order to copy or browse or whatever, you have to have a path to copy or browse *to*. That requires specifying where in the existing filesystem to put that path - and doing that is, itself, a mount operation. Unless you're willing to set up a daemon on the Windows side which will handle the communication itself, bypassing filesystem syntax etc., you're not going to be able to get away without an explicit mount step. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature