Network file-sharing twixt OS9 and [other-OS] ... how?

[Hyram]

What extra tweaks and pieces of codey goodness does one have to add to The 9 so it can send & recieve files with an OS X machine these days? Last time I tried to set something up like this for someone with a couple of 9-boxen and a pair of Mac-tels, AppleShare in the Chooser could be coerced into finding the (Snow) Leopard machines without too many headaches.

These days, silence from both sides. It's like OS9 is waving semaphore flags whilst macOS is with the frik'n lasers.

Seeing FruitCo's mostly about SMB of one flavour or another these days, would Thursby's DAVE be worth a shot, you think?


H

[GaryN]

AppleFileShare is long gone. You can move files via your LAN using FTP as long as you have both machines online.
FileTransferProtocol is no longer shown in OSX prefs but till exists in the OS and can be brought to life in Terminal.

Try this (Don't forget the spaces!):

1. On the “new” Mac, enable the FTP server on OSX through Terminal sudo -s launchctl load -w /System/Library/LaunchDaemons/ftp.plist.

2. Share files though Sharing Preferences on OSX.

3. Get Fetch here: http://macintoshgarden.org/apps/fetch-212

4. Fire up Fetch on OS 9 and have it connect using the IP address of the newer Mac.

[DieHard]

Gary is spot on, this is by FAR the best method

Not to open up a can of worms (ewww), but please read our many posts regarding resource forks and OS9 files being stored elsewhere... AFAIR "Dave" preserves forks via a method known as "NTFS" streams and OS X will use Extended Attributes (managed by HFS+) to safely store the OS9 stuff, but if you are going to bounce stuff all over the place (and possibly on a Windows PC or external FAT drive), you may want to archive the files (stuff em up) and encode with Macbinary like we do here

[FdB]

Yup, Gary. Great!

Sticky? Sticky!
But where best to place the actual topic/post for the future?

[IIO]

using an ftp client to reach (more or less) everything systemwide on an OSX host works good, but it would be even better if you had finder integration on the OS9 client just like OSX has.

or at least a working network client.

[Hyram]

Oh, I know all about n-fork file-systems and the perils that lay within, I assure you

Modern macOS still understands how to handle n-forked data, it doesn't lose resource forks nor Alternate Data Streams ... besides, I'm a long-time ShrinkWrapper, I'm long in the habit of storing things flat, no matter which platform I'm on. Unless its cross-platform generic data, folders and singletons get turned into a disk .img and then Stuffed. Bumpng a .sit from System 7 to Windows 2000 is no different to net-bumping a .gif or .pdf across file-system domains, completely risk-free.

I have a faint memory of something Dana(mania) did in this situation a few years back where she set up an intermediary machine running Tiger (I think) which took shares from more modern Macs and her handful of non-Apple gear and gatewayed them down to ASIP-6 level AFP for her System 7 machines to interact with ...

(I should get around to my introduce-myself posting that's been sitting in half-draft in another tab for the past two days, then my thirty-four years as an ACHT won't get marginalised again )

[macStuff]

nothing NOTHING beats the desktop-integration that you can achieve by mounting a network-share over a gigabit ethernet network with a NAS4FREE Fileserver

a nas4free server is a fileserver that runs using modern PC hardware, using an os that is powered by FREEBSD
(similar to how one would repurpose an old pc as a "linux box")
which employs a number of different daemon servers that support basically every known type of transfer (AFP - SMB - FTP)
for me,
my #1 is AFP because it outperforms FTP + SMB
#2 is SMB  because of its prevalence
#3 is FTP because it still works (albeit not that well for transfering large amounts of files)

it blows my mind that many of the self titled 'core members' of this macos9lives.com forum commujnity have chosen to be ignorant of my suggestions for the last 4 years
nothing will perform better than my reccommendation. it is hands down the best solution that truly "bridges all" from any vintage os to any modern os.

https://www.nas4free.org

in the end u end up with a pc thats been repurposed to act entirely as a fileserver and is setup/configured via any web browser on your local network
with a screen that looks like this:


it allows u to intall many different hard drives and RAID Them together to provide one contiguous block of free space for your apps to access over the network
ive gotten file transfer speeds that are much better thant he performance of firewire 400 possibly even firewire800 using a locally shared hard drive via nas4free
i cant reccommend it highy enough.  if you have a gigabit ethernet capable network (cat 5e cable or cat 6, with gigabit ethernet capable nics on both mac + nas4free server) you will be amazed at the performance you can achieve.

that high level of performance coupled with the native integration of macOS (not having to use a 3rd party app at all)
will blow your mind unless u are too lazy to investigate it at all like most of the lazy old people on this site

[DieHard]

nothing NOTHING beats the desktop-integration that you can achieve by mounting a network-share over a gigabit ethernet network with a NAS4FREE Fileserver

Yes. the NAS solution is an excellent solution and you are 100% correct, I only use the FTP because it is rare I need to bounce things from OS9 to OSX; In fact as I have bored you with this many times, rather than run a server 24/7, I use my RAIDed FW solutions since I do not have many machines on at once anymore.  I agree that if you have a bunch of macs and PCs on all the time than the NAS is obviously the superior (and Free at that) way to go.   

These days the 6 Windows PCs I use for tech support, and 1 point of sale are all virtual PCs in parallels.  I give the VM 2 out of 8 cores and they run way fast.  My file transfers are usually just bouncing things around in the same box.  The NAS4FREE is a better solution than many propriety QNAP, Seagate, & Synology boxes, but I still use the "Know" boxes for client installs since they have other services that clients need like Google cloud integration and backup, remote security, Sdrive phone technology and yada yada yada.... but I am sure the NAS4free probably has more plugins then when I last fired it up in 2015 and tested the balls out of it.  As Chris suggests, it is very fast over gigabit Ethernet, almost too fast, you think the stuff did not copy..lol... it is very robust on an Intel Dual core 3 Ghz (that is what I tested it on); I ran simultaneous writes from a 4 different tech servers and it didn't even phase it.

The NAS solution is still #1 for small business environments and for Media-hungry families that have large music/Video libraries, but may be overkill for the average Joe with 2 or 3 macs.

it blows my mind that many of the self titled 'core members' of this macos9lives.com forum community have chosen to be ignorant of my suggestions for the last 4 years nothing will perform better than my recommendation.

Please be careful, a mind is a terrible thing to waste, I am sorry if the "core members" are responsible for such violence

[GaryN]

that high level of performance coupled with the native integration of macOS (not having to use a 3rd party app at all)
will blow your mind unless u are too lazy to investigate it at all like most of the lazy old people on this site

And there you go again! You just can't help yourself, can you?

[macStuff]

maybe yall should take a hint and try it sometime
its not rocket science its not overkill at all.. its a pc.. running software that is mac os compatible over the network..
simple stuff
all it takes is an old pc with 2-4gb of RAM and a 8gb USB key
i have two machines on my network they make transfers from machine to machne such a breeze
because it "Speaks the language" of whatever os.. the osx machines connect via SMB..
the os9 machines connect via AFP and theres an FTP server aswell.. all accessing the same data
at the same time. its beautiful.

[Hyram]

Ahh, excellent! Time to put my spare N36L Microserver to work again!

[macStuff]

id be very interested to hear others success stories to find out if they share the same great success that i achieved

i was able to save + open large wave files easily over the network using whatever app as though the drive was mounted locally

faster speeds than firewire 400

[MacTron]

id be very interested to hear others success stories to find out if they share the same great success that i achieved

I prefer Netatalk. I have used it for years to connect all my Mac Os 9 machines to my main Debian Linux server. Nothing is so transparent. And nothing  fulfills so exactly my needs as Netatalk. I have even used it to connet my (now defuncted) iPad 2 to my Mac Os 9 machines.

[refinery]

i have a x-serve in my home which i use for filesharing, attached to an external RAID array. very nice, very fast setup.
the server is running 10.9 mavericks.

i run vmware fusion on the machine, with a VM running OSX 10.5, which still has filesharing support for OS9.

i have a folder set up as a share within that VM.

I have a shortcut on my OSX machines to that sharepoint. the OS9 machine has that same share automounted on boot.

its seamless, and, besides the time to install OSX in the VM, took about five minutes to set up. has been working perfectly 2+ years now.

[Astroman]

I prefer the Synology boxes for their almost instant and idiot-proof setup.
Never had a problem with OS-9 stuff like forks and icons.
Crucial part of my own use is exchange between Pro Tools and iPads in both directions.
(the Synology personal cloud can replace iCloud in many cases)

In low traffic local use a small setup-change may be worth the effort: formatting disks as non-raid allows any brand/type, while the default raid requires high quality drives and does a lot of extra spinning.

[macStuff]

netatalk is exactly whats in nas4free though, but running on FREEBSD os + PC hardware -- thats why i use it
so i think we are tlaking about the same thing.? almost??
you prefer netatalk installed on what os?

[Metrophage]

I use FTP and Netatalk. Actually, I hadn't reinstalled Netatalk since I wiped and redid my Linux "main driver" earlier in the year.

Any setup tips? I was able to set it up to work with OS 9 - OR - with OS X, but I wasn't able to figure out a Neta setup that worked for both.

[DieHard]

Maybe Mactron can post a Quickie set of setup Steps...

1) Create Linux PC (or PPC G4 ?) and which version
2) Load and configure Netatalk (which version)
3) etc....

[MacTron]

Maybe Mactron can post a Quickie set of setup Steps...

OK, here we go 

The first thing to do is to check if your Linux or Unix distribution have the Netatalk package. if it is available install it using the ordinary procedure on your Linux or Unix distro. If  Netatalk it is not available, you should try to compile, but this is far away from a basic intro like this ...

Once Netatalk is installed on your Linux or Unix distro, you can log into it from your Mac knowing your Linux or Unix network IP:



User  and Password :





Then the Home folder will be mounted on your Mac desktop as if really was another Mac!



I have successfully used this system for years. No problem with resource forks.The biggest drawback is that only files smaller than 2 Gb can be used and transferred.

[DieHard]

Cool, I have dealer not for resale copies of RedHat that are pretty old, I will look if they have Netatalk