You could set up an ssh server on either side, and transfer files easily and securely. I do this all the time.
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