[janci]

While still useful to have a native tool, you can use WSL to mount a sshfs path in windows. I even use it for LUKS containers.

[sulandor]

> you can use WSL to mount a sshfs path in windows

and then access them from the host via virtual smb shares

   To view all of your available Linux distributions and their root file systems in Windows File explorer, in the address bar enter: \\wsl$

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/wsl/filesystems

[actionfromafar]

Ackshully I think those are Plan 9 file shares, not smb.

[8K832d7tNmiQ]

Not everyone wants to install a huge resource just to use one feature.

[sulandor]

thou wsl is heavier than cygwin, both options aren't really lightweight.

[ranger_danger]

I thought sshfs on Linux is no longer maintained

[opan]

What are you basing that on? It had a release in 2022 and last commit is 7 months old. It probably hasn't needed any new features in a while. I'm not sure how often it would need security updates.

Ah, I see now there's a note in the README[0]. It sounds more like it's in maintenance mode / understaffed than completely abandoned, but I suppose it's worth being aware of. sshfs has been a killer feature for me on my machines for years for things like playing back stuff from my media library in mpv while it's stored on another machine. I found it to be easier to use and less glitchy than NFS. So I will likely continue to use it.

[0] https://github.com/libfuse/sshfs?tab=readme-ov-file#developm...

[bubblesnort]

If it works, don't fix it.

[ranger_danger]

I don't think we should be telling people to keep using unsecure versions of ssh.

[pletnes]

It’s quite possible that security is handled by ssh such that sshfs isn’t exposed over the network. If sshfs can use newer ssh it might be just fine.

[opan]

I am curious how much stuff sshfs itself does and how much is just handled by ssh or fuse on your system. (am not a programmer, unfortunately, before someone says to read the code)

[nsteel]

An insecure version of secure shell doesn't "work".

[ranger_danger]

It's ok for people to have different definitions of things

[nsteel]

People also have different ideas of what "unmaintained" means. The earlier poster was likely highlighting the common misconception that software must be constantly changed in order to be considered maintained.

Personally, if something is called secure shell and it's not secure, then it's broken. Maybe I'm weird.