Best FTP clients
in [Mac Systems]
|
From: Jamie Kahn Genet on 21 Mar 2010 03:31 Steven Fisher <sdfisher(a)spamcop.net> wrote: > In article <jwolf6589-A15DF0.18432919032010(a)nntp.charter.net>, > John <jwolf6589(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > > > What are your picks? > > I use SFTP/SSH rather than FTP, so MacFUSE and SSHFS. I haven't done > many file transfers lately, though, so I'm not sure this combination > still works. > > If you're doing a lot of transfers, ExpanDrive performs well and isn't > too expensive. I have an older version and haven't upgraded yet, though. > > Other than that, Transmit. Does FTP and SFTP. > > > Steve A client I notice no one has mentioned is NetFinder <http://www.ortabe.com/products/>. It's been around since classic days and is now fully updated for OSX. Good solid FTP client, and AppleScriptable too :-) Still, since I bought Fetch years ago and it does everything I want to do, I've not felt the need to change. But if faced with having to buy an FTP client today, either Fetch, NetFinder, or Interarchy would be my first choices, admitedly mostly due to my comfortable familiarity with all three since classic days. -- If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
From: dorayme on 21 Mar 2010 03:55 In article <200320101604020162%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <slrnhqakp3.1g29.g.kreme(a)cerebus.local>, Lewis > <g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > > > >> > And why, pray tell, would Apple intentionally make the finder's FTP > > >> > capability read-only (aka: useless) ? > > >> > > >> Being able to download files is useless? > > > > > being able to *only* download files is useless. > > > > No it's not. It's all I used ftp for. > > that's great but you don't speak for everyone. others do need to upload. Conveniently ignoring that this only makes it useless for some people and not for everyone. -- dorayme
From: dorayme on 21 Mar 2010 03:57 In article <200320101617187933%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <slrnhqallp.1g29.g.kreme(a)cerebus.local>, Lewis > <g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > > > I am not speaking for everyone. I am pointing out that it is not > > useless. > > to *you*. This is unfair. When you said it was useless, you made no fancy qualification about to whom but when Lewis rightly points out it is not useless, suddenly the qualification comes on stage. How one eyed is that? -- dorayme
From: nospam on 21 Mar 2010 04:19 In article <slrnhqbl5l.2u8j.g.kreme(a)cerebus.local>, Lewis <g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > BBEdit includes ftp support for two reasons. 1) the code is already > there and there is no reason to rip it out. how did it get there in the first place? > 2) it is a lot harder to integrate into someone else's ftp. depends on many factors.
From: nospam on 21 Mar 2010 04:50
In article <slrnhqbn0t.2u8j.g.kreme(a)cerebus.local>, Lewis <g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > >> BBEdit includes ftp support for two reasons. 1) the code is already > >> there and there is no reason to rip it out. > > > how did it get there in the first place? > > BBEdit has been around a LONG LONG LONG Time. > > It predates OS X. It predates Mac OS 9, and Mac OS 8, and System 7. Yes, > BBEdit has been around since System 6. Version on came out the same > decade as the Mac itself. i'm well aware of bbedit's history and how barebones came to exist. the first version of bbedit did not have ftp. if i recall correctly, it was added in version 5, about 10 years ago. |