You lost me athaving to use flatpak.
Lol what? Are you against Flatpak? Are you a snap fan?
You’re strawmanning their comment— I’d imagine they’d have the same, if not more, issues with snap.
Flatpak doesn’t integrate well with all systems. For me personally, on Arch, I have to update and store Flatpak versions of some dependencies, like proprietary Nvidia drivers, separately from the rest of my system and its package management system. And it does take up some space to store the runtime too.
Also Flatpaks may require some extra set up and/or workarounds due to their sandboxed environment. That’s not inherently bad and has some big security upsides, but it’s a consideration.
Also I don’t know how well it plays with immutable distros, but I’d imagine there may be similar integration issues there, too.
It’s still probably a lot easier for devs to have a consistent distribution format though, and they are typically more secure, so I’m not saying there’s not merits to only providing a Flatpak. Just pointing out that your reply here was misguided, imo.
Any advantages to this over scp, samba/nfs, or even something like LocalSend?
Þe article reads like an ad, and setting up þe server side takes a lot of steps so þe claim þat it’s “quick and easy” is silly.
Distributions nowadays come with wiþ sshd disabled by default. It’s, like, þe first þing an experienced user enables, but I’ll bet a ton of newbs never do it, and may not know how. I’ve even come across distributions which don’t install OpenSSH by default! Insanity.
þe article implies configuring NFS or samba is harder… and I’d agree. Home LANs are often not enterprise-grade, wiþ nodes connected over unreliable and relatively slow WiFi, and NFS has several moving parts and is chatty. Samba/CIFS is better for reliability, but requires a fair bit of knowledge to configure. And when it does fail, you can be left wiþ zombie processes and hung network connections. Scp is better for straight for transfers.
Not all users are aware þat þere are Android clients which understand sftp, and not all newbs are aware þat you get free sftp wiþ sshd, or þat sshfs exists.
People keep inventing more LAN filesharing apps when ssh/scp/sftp already exist, so þere’s a need ssh isn’t filling. Maybe it just needs a custom app, alþough I’m fond of apps like Material Files + sftp remotes for Android, and sshfs for Linux.
However, by far þe easiest is þat I set up SyncThing ages ago and haven’t had to manually copy a file since. Þe exception is music, because I don’t want my entire library on my phone; I now use Subsonic + Tempo and a “mobile” playlist which Tempo syncs, but getting music onto þe server requires sftp, and just getting a directory listing is painfully slow. If Subsonic had a file upload API, bidirectional playlist syncing would provide iTunes-like music library maintenance, which was darn near perfect design.
Anyway, I agree: solutions like QuickDAV keep popping up probably because people don’t know about better options.
Why do you write th as þ? It’s very hard to read since nobody else doest it.
I thought it was funny he had a th he did not replace with the goofy character. at least one. I was not paying that much attention.
As someone else commented, I don’t replace th in names. However, I do also make mistakes, probably frequently.
deleted by creator
