I don't think anything is being subject to ridicule here ... we're just discussing options, and why some work better than others and for what reasons. Personal preference matters here too.

The OP should also check out EtherDFS and https://github.com/jrohel/NetMount. Both do file-level sharing. EtherDFS is older and well-known; NetMount works using UDP and IP so it is routable.

dionb wrote on 2025-11-28, 21:59:

... But please don't ridicule other perfectly workable options that work well for others.

No intention to "ridicule" anything, just responding to you "self inflicted" comment and trying to explain why I ultimately went with my own solution (in fact I wrote DDLINK to easily move stuff on/off ImageDisk systems).

ImageDisk has to run under DOS (access floppy ctrler directly and in non-standard ways) - since a lot of people don't have DOS, some have to boot from floppy - and I needed a flexible file transfer solution that would fit on a floppy without taking significant space: DDLINK.COM = 17k plus packet driver. ImageDisk itself and its various tools also has to fit, and depending on the drive you are using to image, might be as little as 360k.

I'm well aware of packet drivers - but I've not seen a SAMBA client that uses one (I think NEOS is the only full network I've ever used which works over a packet driver - I'm sure there are others)

Mikes stuff might work, but not terribly easy to access individual files on the server side, and need to understand/configure TCP network which as I mentioned earlier can be a bit of ongoing work in DOS.

DDLINK works very well DOS <> DOS <> DosBox (modern system) - needs no configuration, doesn't have to be installed - and can transfer over Network, Parallel or Serial connections.... Ultimately I decided to make it my main DOS network file transfer tool.

Enough other people have liked it that it seems worth mentioning when someone asks about simple DOS networking (obviously it's one of many options, and users should go with whatever they are most comfortable with - I just want them to be aware of this particular option).

Yes, I run modern systems for much of what I do these days, but having 40+ years of stuff I developed under DOS, I use DosBox quite a bit as well (most of my tools are written using my own Micro-C compiler which I've never found reason/desire to port to Winblows or any other "modern" system) - and since I still like to make PC attached hardware "stuff" I use DOS for that - no special "drivers" or system protection work arounds...

And - FWIW, I often use a ChromeBook to access stuff on the net ..

dionb wrote on 2025-11-28, 21:59:

Yes, it's entirely possible you also don't know your login ...

... is this "ridicule" ... ?

I don't memorize the login information for my routers - I only want to access it a few times a year ... I do have it written down, but on one of my upstairs systems, when working in my downstairs lab, I don't want to be having to go elsewhere just to figure out how to connected to a system that's on the bench beside me.

nor do I want to clutter my lab notes with information I shouldn't need in that environment.

The OP asked about the ability to "copy files to the local disk" of his retro PC.

Personally I think a persistent drive type solution like SMB, NFS or similar is more complex (and memory hungry) than needed for this.

I'd put my money behind a packet driver + plus the MTCP suite + a FTP server on whatever server has the files.

Packet drivers are small, can usually be loaded/unloaded dynamically and if the desire is just to transfer down (or up) the occasional file then it's the much lighter solution than a full file share protocol like SMB or NFS.