Best FTP clients
in [Mac Applications]
|
From: Jolly Roger on 21 Mar 2010 22:25 In article <sdfisher-FE4B66.17371421032010(a)mara100-84.onlink.net>, Steven Fisher <sdfisher(a)spamcop.net> wrote: > In article <jollyroger-23F34F.16282521032010(a)news.individual.net>, > Jolly Roger <jollyroger(a)pobox.com> wrote: > > > You should have qualified it then. > > I thought we were talking to end users here. It seems more like you > should have qualified your "completely wrong." I'm an end user, and I use the command-line FTP client all the time. -- Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts. JR
From: Wes Groleau on 21 Mar 2010 23:34 Jeffrey Goldberg wrote: > So maybe Apple decided that ditching FTP writes in the Finder was like > ditching floppy drives. This doesn't seem all that plausible, but I > thought I would mention the possibility. Possible--but they did call it a bug in a man page. > When I get to choose hosting services, I insist on rsync support. When > I've had to work with hosting services (not of my choice) that were FTP > only I used lftp which will attempt to simulate rsync over FTP. Rsync is cool. My provider doesn't support it, so I use sitecopy which does what rsync does (in avoiding unnecessary work) but does it at the file level (if the file is changed, sends the entire file). -- Wes Groleau Is it an on-line compliment to call someone a Net Wit ?
From: Wes Groleau on 21 Mar 2010 23:38 Lewis wrote: > Not necessarily. A BUG in the man page is not necessarily a bug, it is a > place to describe functionality that some might assume would be present. > > For example, the man page for strftime lists: > > BUGS > There is no conversion specification for the phase of the moon. That's someone's idea of a joke, like the Google Maps' "swim across the atlantic" (which is no longer in there). Since the read-only comment did not sound like a joke, I suspect that at least the person who wrote it considers it a bug. And anyone who saw it and chose not to change it. -- Wes Groleau HOW to teach grammar ? http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=88
From: Jeffrey Goldberg on 22 Mar 2010 01:09 On 2010-03-21 10:34 PM, Wes Groleau wrote: > Jeffrey Goldberg wrote: >> So maybe Apple decided that ditching FTP writes in the Finder was like >> ditching floppy drives. This doesn't seem all that plausible, but I >> thought I would mention the possibility. > > Possible--but they did call it a bug in a man page. I wouldn't read too much into that. The "BUGS" section of man pages is often used to list things that are more properly considered limitations. >> When I get to choose hosting services, I insist on rsync support. When >> I've had to work with hosting services (not of my choice) that were FTP >> only I used lftp which will attempt to simulate rsync over FTP. > > Rsync is cool. My provider doesn't support it, so I use sitecopy which > does what rsync does (in avoiding unnecessary work) but does it at the > file level (if the file is changed, sends the entire file). I will look at sitecopy. lftp has a mode which does exactly this. But because it works over FTP it can only look at modify dates and file lengths to determine what needs updating. Anyway, for each site I maintain, I have a "sync" script that calls rsync or lftp as appropriate. Another problem with FTP is setting the file permissions. I rely on the XBitHack in Apache which allows me to control which .html files will be processed for server side includes by controlling the execute bit on the .html files. http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/mod/mod_include.html#xbithack -j -- Jeffrey Goldberg http://goldmark.org/jeff/ I rarely read HTML or poorly quoting posts Reply-To address is valid
From: Jeffrey Goldberg on 22 Mar 2010 01:14
On 2010-03-21 10:38 PM, Wes Groleau wrote: > Lewis wrote: >> Not necessarily. A BUG in the man page is not necessarily a bug, it is a >> place to describe functionality that some might assume would be present. >> >> For example, the man page for strftime lists: >> >> BUGS >> There is no conversion specification for the phase of the moon. > > That's someone's idea of a joke, like the Google Maps' "swim across the > atlantic" (which is no longer in there). But consider the man page for cat(1) BUGS Because of the shell language mechanism used to perform output redirection, the command ``cat file1 file2 > file1'' will cause the original data in file1 to be destroyed! The cat utility does not recognize multibyte characters when the -t or -v option is in effect. The first one is not anything a programmer could consider a bug in cat. It's a warning to remind users of something that could go wrong if they use cat in certain ways. The second issue may more properly be considered a bug. But even then, I find it more useful to think of the BUGS section of man pages as stating limitations and warnings. -j -- Jeffrey Goldberg http://goldmark.org/jeff/ I rarely read HTML or poorly quoting posts Reply-To address is valid |