> Now, how about this common scenario: I want to run a file-sharing server on my network. I want a random "friend" to come over and grab a copy of a file, but I don't want them to see any other files on the NFS server.

How is that a common scenario? Why not give them your drive and the encryption key while you’re at it? It would be way faster.

The correct scenario would be to just copy the file and serve it with ftp or http on another interface.

▲ mmh0000 an hour ago | parent [-]

Ah, so you agree NFS is not fit for purpose (network file sharing), and I should use something else to share files over the network.

EDIT (the above is a bit more snark than I intended, let me add a little more):

NFS's direct (still widely used) competitor, SMB, natively supports:

  - Authentication
  - Transfer encryption
  - Authentication encryption
  - Has open implementations across platforms
  - Supports individual account management, and large enterprisey account management (LDAP/AD/etc)

With SMB, I can share out a directory on the network that allows visitors access, optionally authenticated with a simple username and password.

I can share out specific directories with easy control over who can access what. You know, basic network file sharing capabilities.

[[ And, don't take this as a love for SMB, it too has many issues and legacy junk ]]

	▲	skydhash 8 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> Ah, so you agree NFS is not fit for purpose (network file sharing), and I should use something else to share files over the network NFS stands for Network File System, not Network File Sharing. If you gave a disk to someone, the permission bits wouldn’t stand for anything too.