From: Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com
On 1/17/26 18:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 17/01/2026 13:11, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>> "Carlos E.R." writes:
>>> On 2026-01-16 15:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 16/01/2026 12:48, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> scp -- wrong. rsync, scp and sftp are all different ways of
>>>>> transferring files securely over SSH.
>>>> Are they? even if you run rsyncd?
>>
>> If you tell it to connect to an rsyncd then indeed it does not use SSH.
>>
>> Personally I have never bothered with rsyncd...
>>
> Ah. I do. None of my data is private that is being stored remotely
>
>>> AFAIK yes, the transfer happens of the ssh port with ssh type of
>>> encryption. That is what the article says, so take it with a pinch of
>>> salt. Variances per distributions. It is true in openSUSE.
>>
>> The zdnet article says nothing about what protocol rsync uses.
>>
> I think it is straight streaming of bytes and that is it.
> Locally i have nfs mounts to move data around.
>
> So I don't really use ssh protocols to copy data at all.
>
>
I'm currently looking at moving from backing up data on Samba shares, to
ssh/rsync (due to symlink issues). I fell at the first hurdle of how to
have root access on both local and remote host. Eventually I created a
new remote user account with passwordless sudo, specifically for rsync.
The solution seemed a bit crap. It seemed that such a common usecase
should be better documented, like I was missing something.
Does rsyncd solve this root access problem? Is it a better/more orthodox
solution.
I could potentially use nfs, but I do still use Windows occasionally, so
would like access from Windows, I did briefly consider dual shares using
both Samba and nfs.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
