Best FTP clients
in [Mac Applications]
|
From: Steven Fisher on 20 Mar 2010 23:30 In article <200320101536240708%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > being able to *only* download files is useless. > > what if mounting appleshare servers was intentionally read-only? would > that be ok? If all you needed was read only, sure. It's certainly not useless. It does half the job that power users need, which happens to be the half that most people need. Steve
From: Steven Fisher on 20 Mar 2010 23:33 In article <4ba59095$0$15756$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot(a)vaxination.ca> wrote: > One would dispute that. A perfectly usable FTP client is expected to do > both send and receive of files. The FTP standard is not read only, it > is for bidirectional file transfers. One who would dispute that would be failing basic logic. Clearly if something has a use to some, it is not useless. Steve
From: Jeffrey Goldberg on 21 Mar 2010 01:30 On 2010-03-20 10:33 PM, Steven Fisher wrote: > One who would dispute that would be failing basic logic. Clearly if > something has a use to some, it is not useless. Agreed, but at what point does this discussion become useless? -j -- Jeffrey Goldberg http://goldmark.org/jeff/ I rarely read HTML or poorly quoting posts Reply-To address is valid
From: gl4317 on 21 Mar 2010 02:24 In article <jollyroger-6E7D62.19250120032010(a)news.individual.net>, Jolly Roger <jollyroger(a)pobox.com> wrote: > In article <200320101529496989%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, > nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > > that was for os 9. you'd think in nearly ten years they could figure > > out why it crashed, along with rewriting it for os x. > > It's obviously not a priority for Apple. Considering the several dozen articles that have already been posted to this newsgroup thread discussing FTP clients, some of which are free and some of which are shareware and some of which are commercial distributions, I have to wonder WHY Apple would bother writing their own full-featured FTP client, and building it into the finder? After all, with so much other stuff on the market to fill that particular need, why create another one? And we haven't even touched on the various FTP abilities of the various web browsers either. I've never used Safari as an FTP client, but I have used several others, from Netscape 0.9 for the Mac to fairly recent versions of Internet Explorer (never used NCSA Mosaic as an FTP client, except when it needed to load certain web pages using that protocal - at that time all the FTP stuff I needed was handled by Unix command lines). So, that gives us a few more FTP clients if the dedicated stuff on the market wasn't enough already. Is it really that much easier to do this with it built into the finder than with a separate program? -- -Glennl Please note this e-mail address is a pit of spam, and most e-mail sent to this address are simply lost in the vast mess.
From: Steven Fisher on 21 Mar 2010 02:26
In article <80lp8aFfpiU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody(a)goldmark.org> wrote: > On 2010-03-20 10:33 PM, Steven Fisher wrote: > > > One who would dispute that would be failing basic logic. Clearly if > > something has a use to some, it is not useless. > > Agreed, but at what point does this discussion become useless? Some time ago, I think. It took me a while to catch up on the thread. :) Steve |