See it all depends, as @Jeffrey@lemmy.ml mentioned, out of the box you can start easily mounting remote stuff in a secure way. Depending on the latency between the remote location and you, SSHFS might become more resilient than NFS, though in general might be slower (data goes encrypted and encapsulated by default), but still within the same local LAN (not as remote as mounting something from Texas into Panamá for example), I’m more than OK with SSHFS. Cifs or smbfs is something I prefer avoiding unless there’s no option, you need a samba server exposing a “shared” area, and it requires MS-NT configurations for it to work, and managing access control and users is, well, NTish, so to me it’s way simpler to access remote FS through SSH on the remote device I already have SSH access to, and it boils down to NFS vs. SSHFS, and I consider easier, faster and more secure, the SSHFS way.
But “better”, apart from somehow subjective, depends on your taste as well.
is it better than samba/nfs?
Better? :)
See it all depends, as @Jeffrey@lemmy.ml mentioned, out of the box you can start easily mounting remote stuff in a secure way. Depending on the latency between the remote location and you, SSHFS might become more resilient than NFS, though in general might be slower (data goes encrypted and encapsulated by default), but still within the same local LAN (not as remote as mounting something from Texas into Panamá for example), I’m more than OK with SSHFS. Cifs or smbfs is something I prefer avoiding unless there’s no option, you need a samba server exposing a “shared” area, and it requires MS-NT configurations for it to work, and managing access control and users is, well, NTish, so to me it’s way simpler to access remote FS through SSH on the remote device I already have SSH access to, and it boils down to NFS vs. SSHFS, and I consider easier, faster and more secure, the SSHFS way.
But “better”, apart from somehow subjective, depends on your taste as well.