Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Transfer.sh – Easy file sharing from the command line

transfer.sh

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 88 posts

Re: Transfer.sh – Easy file sharing from the command line

#41

Post by dashezup »

jchw wrote: post #40
dashezup wrote: post #31

I used to self-host transfer.sh, but nowadays I just use WebDAV. 1. it's easy to get WebDAV running, most of HTTP server support it through modules. or you could run it with rclone, on non-standard port or behind a reverse proxy 2. I don't share upload access with others, it's only for my own use. and this way I don't need to deal with huge uploads or illegal contents. 3. I could also just curl it, the uploaded conte…

I’m a big fan of WebDAV. As a bonus, you can host tiddlywiki in WebDAV and it just works. The only downside as far as I can tell is WebDAV support in Windows Explorer has problems with modern TLS setups.

Haven't use Windows for a while, on macOS I used to use NFS to access files on a LAN server but switched to WebDAV as well because it seems easier and cleaner to use WebDAV compare to SMB/NFS, since it does not require extra services or opened ports on server.

Nowadays I mainly use linux distro, the main use case of accessing files from LAN server is watching movies or TV series. I just create m3u/m3u8 playlist on server and play it through HTTP (not necessarily use WebDAV in this case). this way could avoid potential troubles I could get from mounting a remote directory.

  # LAN server
  ls -1 *.mp4 >playlist.m3u
  # computer, mpv with "save-position-on-quit"
  mpv http://raspberrypi.lan/path/to/playlist.m3u

Re: Transfer.sh – Easy file sharing from the command line

#42

Post by kokx »

IncRnd wrote: post #5

This stores files for two weeks on a third-party server. What advantages for the intended use cases does transfer.sh have over netcat invented 26 years ago? I know some people who have used nc for those entire 26 years to xfer files point-to-point from the command line.

I have literally done this once with a friend of mine, transfer a file over netcat. It cost us about 10 minutes of figuring out the exact commands, and we were at the same LAN party, and thus had a direct network path to each others systems. With most consumer routers and their NAT this would be much more complicated. And this was with a friend with high unix knowledge, so not just the "I know how to paste commands from askubuntu" knowledge.

So yeah, just being able to copy curl commands from a website certainly has value over configuring complicated commands.

Re: Transfer.sh – Easy file sharing from the command line

#43

Post by feross »

I'll throw Wormhole.app (https://wormhole.app) into the ring as well.

- End-to-end encrypted

- Send up to 10 GB and get a share link in 1 second

- Files are hosted for 24 hours so you don't have to be online at the same time as the receiver

- There's no need to wait for your files to finish uploading before you can copy the link and send it to your recipient. The recipient can start downloading even before the files have finished uploading.

- Browser-based, nothing to install

- Uses RFC 8188, same as Firefox Send. Open source here: https://github.com/SocketDev/wormhole-crypto

Re: Transfer.sh – Easy file sharing from the command line

#46

Post by timvisee »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #22

How do services like this handle the copyright/malware/child porn problem? That is, I thought the whole reason send.firefox.com shut down was that it became a hub for sharing illegal content and there wasn't a good way to filter that out. If Mozilla couldn't solve that issue for a free service, how can anyone else?

Yes. Malicious uploads.

The fact that Mozilla's well-known name was attached didn't help. That made unsuspecting users trust malicious uploads/links.

Re: Transfer.sh – Easy file sharing from the command line

#48

Post by tfsh »

kwitze wrote: post #38
PUSH_AX wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Illegal content is generally ephemeral regardless of where you host it. I don't think this changes much, it could still provide a good home for some illegal things.

I would very much like it for people to start calling it immoral content more than illegal content.

"Immoral" and "illegal" are not logically equivalent. An act being immoral does not make it illegal and an immoral act is not necessarily illegal.

Immorality is extremely nuanced and heavily influenced by society. Eg. homosexulity is illegal in some south Asian countries such as Indonesia, but is not seen as immoral in most parts of the world.

Conflating the two - or preferring the term "immoral" over "illegal" inherently lends itself to allowing people to rationalise illegal activities - such as child pornography as only being "disapproved of by society" (morality being a fairly abstract concept) rather than an act which violates the laws of the land and is officially and formally condemned by the government.

Re: Transfer.sh – Easy file sharing from the command line

#49

Post by chocolatkey »

jchw wrote: post #40
dashezup wrote: post #31

I used to self-host transfer.sh, but nowadays I just use WebDAV. 1. it's easy to get WebDAV running, most of HTTP server support it through modules. or you could run it with rclone, on non-standard port or behind a reverse proxy 2. I don't share upload access with others, it's only for my own use. and this way I don't need to deal with huge uploads or illegal contents. 3. I could also just curl it, the uploaded conte…

I’m a big fan of WebDAV. As a bonus, you can host tiddlywiki in WebDAV and it just works. The only downside as far as I can tell is WebDAV support in Windows Explorer has problems with modern TLS setups.

The problem with webdav on windows explorer for me has always been the lag. Windows explorer has never really handled remotes with latency well, and webdav is one of those when you access a server across the globe

Re: Transfer.sh – Easy file sharing from the command line

#50

Post by fish45 »

tfsh wrote: post #48
kwitze wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would very much like it for people to start calling it immoral content more than illegal content.

"Immoral" and "illegal" are not logically equivalent. An act being immoral does not make it illegal and an immoral act is not necessarily illegal. Immorality is extremely nuanced and heavily influenced by society. Eg. homosexulity is illegal in some south Asian countries such as Indonesia, but is not seen as immoral in most parts of the world. Conflating the two - or preferring the term "immoral" over "illegal" inher…

I think you're agreeing with kwitze. It's ok and even desirable for these services to host illegal, moral content but bad for them to host immoral content
Post reply on HN