Opensource

6685 readers

250 users here now

A community for discussion about open source software! Ask questions, share knowledge, share news, or post interesting stuff related to it!

Credits

Icon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient

⠀

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

pylapp@programming.dev

Lanstash: an easy way to share files on your LAN (codeberg.org)

submitted 5 days ago by cm0002@infosec.pub to c/opensource@programming.dev

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I ( @alpin@lemmy.ml ) started writing a small piece of software some time ago to easily host files on a local server and share them with any device equipped with a web browser or an HTTP client (curl, wget, etc.). I've been using it myself at home and I keep slowly working on it in my free time to add features and fix the problems that I find.

It's very lightweight and fast, and it doesn't require anything special to compile, just a Unix-like system, a C compiler, and a few standard utilities (sorry Windows users). It's compiled into a single binary and that can be configured at compile time or with a config file.

For now it can only be used to download files from the hosting server, but I'm working on uploading, renaming, and deleting files.

Hopefully it can be useful to other people. Any (constructive) feedback is welcome!

Link with source code and instructions: https://codeberg.org/alpin/lanstash

OC by Developer @alpin@lemmy.ml

top 9 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] the_riviera_kid@lemmy.world 6 points 5 days ago (3 children)

Is an SMB share just to difficult to figure out or something?

[–] Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 3 points 5 days ago

To be fair setting up a user account for a random file is a nuisance.

I run a simple web server for just this purpose. Anyone in the net can access my software folder via any browser, download whatever they need. Windows/Linux/Android apps, scripts, etc.

This way no user account is needed, I just send them a link. And the files are well-isolated by both the share the webserver connects through (read only) and then users can only access the files through the web server which doesn't have any change capability.

[–] ArsonButCute@programming.dev 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Unironically, yes.

I used to have every device on my network connected via smb share. Either I did something completely wrong or the protocol is just dog slow. Switched to filebrowser quantum with local mDNS resolution and haven't looked back. Now when I need to move files from pc to pc over the network I just navigate in a browser to http://files.local/ and download them on the client machine. It is also significantly more friendly for my (non-techie) partner who often uses it to grab music from our shared digital music library to put on their MP3 player.

[–] the_riviera_kid@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

I've never had an issue with smb being slow. I do have an issue on my linux machines where it wont show thumbnail previews which is pretty annoying but I've never been bothered by it enough to figure out why.

[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev -4 points 5 days ago

Smb is shit

[–] a_jeering_serpent@sopuli.xyz 3 points 4 days ago

what's wrong with python -m http.server ?

[–] refalo@programming.dev 1 points 4 days ago

What in the name of AI insanity is all this unrelated code.

[–] Creat@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

My go-to is LocalSend for this, but sure, why not.

[–] exdor@programming.dev 4 points 3 days ago

I think the localsend protocol is nice yes

The apps work nice too

But it is written in dart and flutter, which makes it pretty heavy and not native. The android app is 46MB wich doesnt sound much because android apps generally got more and more bloated... but for comparison iyox wormhole is only 14MB.

Syncthing-fork is bigger, basic-sync a bit smaller. But still, a small CLI could be under 1mb and run on way more devices