Best FTP clients
in [Mac Applications]
|
From: Steven Fisher on 21 Mar 2010 15:57 In article <jollyroger-C04821.14285421032010(a)news.individual.net>, Jolly Roger <jollyroger(a)pobox.com> wrote: > In article <sdfisher-866352.11165721032010(a)mara100-84.onlink.net>, > Steven Fisher <sdfisher(a)spamcop.net> wrote: > > > In article <ho5hfi$k2n$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > > Wes Groleau <Groleau+news(a)FreeShell.org> wrote: > > > > > Or because about ten years ago was when OS X > > > appeared--with Network Browser gone and one-way FTP > > > taking its place? > > > > Mac OS X didn't support FTP until 10.2. > > > > Steve > > LOL - good one! Completely wrong, but funny. : ) I'm talking about the Finder, not the command line. And if it's wrong, it's part of Apple's release notes. Steve
From: JF Mezei on 21 Mar 2010 16:04 Jolly Roger wrote: > My wife complains a lot about Cyberduck crashing and doing other things > that cause her headaches. Has it ever occured to you that this may just be an excuse to absolve her of certain marital obligations ? "Not tonight honey, I have a headache because of Cyberduck" ???? :-)
From: Ian Gregory on 21 Mar 2010 16:06 On 2010-03-21, Wes Groleau <Groleau+news(a)FreeShell.org> wrote: > Ten years ago the evil empire made two-way FTP transparent. So on Windows you can edit a file that exists on a remote FTP server in the same way you can edit a local file? Sure you can probably drag and drop to GET a file from an FTP server, then edit the local copy, then drag and drop to PUT the modified file back on the server, but in the meantime someone else may have done the same thing from another client. Locking issues are bad enough on a real distributed filesystem like NFS. Perhaps Apple developers reasoned that if a a user can see a file in a finder window they will assume that they can edit it just like a local file. I don't see how you can mount a directory from an FTP server and make it behave like a local directory unless you make it read-only. Perhaps I am missing something, but in any case, Apple would have had to have a good reason for not making FTP read-write in the Finder, it certainly wasn't laziness or lack of skills. Ian -- Ian Gregory http://www.zenatode.org.uk/
From: Ian Gregory on 21 Mar 2010 16:40 On 2010-03-21, Warren Oates <warren.oates(a)gmail.com> wrote: > In article <michelle-0F3D27.20405020032010(a)nothing.attdns.com>, > Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> wrote: > >> There's a slashed-pencil icon in the lower left corner of the Finder window >> (but only if the tool bar is showing) to show that it's read-only. > > Not only that, but > > man mount_ftp > > will tell you that it's mounting a read-only filesystem. This may have > more to do with filesystems and mount(8) than security. It has to do with the fact that FTP is not a distributed filesystem protocol and that it doesn't have a locking mechanism. Apple created mount_ftp back in 10.2 so they presumably thought it would be a useful addition even if it was read-only. It would obviously be more useful if it was read-write so there must be a good reason why they have not made it so. While mount_ftp is useful for browsing FTP servers, if you want to use the put, mput, delete, mdelete or rmdir functionality of the FTP protocol you need to use an FTP client. Ian -- Ian Gregory http://www.zenatode.org.uk/
From: nospam on 21 Mar 2010 17:01
In article <slrnhqcv2s.qm7.ianji33(a)zenatode.org.uk>, Ian Gregory <ianji33(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > Perhaps Apple developers reasoned that if a a user can see a file in a > finder window they will assume that they can edit it just like a local > file. I don't see how you can mount a directory from an FTP server and > make it behave like a local directory unless you make it read-only. maybe you don't see how, but others figured it out. there was another one but i don't remember its name. <http://www.expandrive.com/mac> <http://www.macfusionapp.org/about.html> > Perhaps I am missing something, but in any case, Apple would have had to > have a good reason for not making FTP read-write in the Finder, it > certainly wasn't laziness or lack of skills. and what reason would that be, seeing that it's already been done? |