It baffles me that Windows Explorer still doesn't know how to connect to an SFTP site out of the box. It has been able to handle FTP sites since decades ago, and Windows has shipped with a working SSH client for several years now. Putting them together should have been a no-brainer. Even Microsoft's own VS Code can browse remote filesystems over SSH as if they were local drives. But no, Windows Explorer just keeps getting slower and crapper instead of gaining useful functions.
It seems like this is useful for mounting sshfs drives on a Windows client. Anyone know how to achieve the inverse? That is, I have SSH access to a Windows host (no WSL) and would like to access its filesystem over sshfs or scp. How to do git remotes over such a connection would also be helpful because I haven't figured that out, either.
You can install openssh server and client as Windows components nowadays, somewhere from settings. You can set up git remotes just fine with it, I don't remember trying sshfs.
They're both missing a lot of features, and which features are missing/unsupported is not documented in the tool itself (it just silently fails if you try to use options they haven't ported over, instead of telling you they're unsupported either in the docs or at run time).
The client is missing multiplexing (ControlMaster, etc.), for example. The server also has various quirks, including requiring extra configuration to allow SSHing in to administrator accounts.
If you can get away with doing everything in WSL instead, you're better off.
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.
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)
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.
The definition of maintained in indeed subjective, so I don't think it can even be called a misconception. People just disagree on what it means, but there can't be a single right or wrong answer.
Some people prefer secure software to be regularly updated and audited and won't trust other programs. I think it's a perfectly reasonable position, but I also know not everyone will think the same way.
