Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

mAxximo · Apr 21, 2005, 12:10 AM

If I do it using Transmit, I can read, write, etc. It works. But if I try and use the �Finder� it won't let me copy or even create a new folder. WHY.
I gotta love permissions.

(10.3.9)

Ganesha · Apr 21, 2005, 12:17 AM

Nothing to do with permissions.

Brass · Apr 21, 2005, 12:19 AM

There've been a zillion threads on this already. The FTP component of the Finder is read only. Whether you like it or not, that's the way it is. Apple made it read only. Apple did not include writing capability in the Finder.

Many people dislike this, and many think it's just fine. For the many arguments on both sides, please search the forum.

Big Mac · 11:33 AM

I guess you need to go back to using OS 9 because OS 9's Finder had full FTP capability. . . oh wait, no, it didn't. And only someone posting flamebait would blame permissions for the inability to upload files.

bmedina · Apr 21, 2005, 01:39 AM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

I guess you need to go back to using OS 9 because OS 9's Finder had full FTP capability. . . oh wait, no, it didn't.

A more valid comparison is Windows, which does include full FTP capabilities in Explorer, AFAIK.

maXXimo, do you have control over the server? I've been using Webdav for a similar situation, and its integration with the Finder is pretty good.

And only an absolute ignoramus would blame permissions for the inability to upload files.

Almost sounds like a troll, eh?

OreoCookie · Apr 21, 2005, 05:00 AM

Captain FTP, anyone? It's free.

Sydney Tsai · Apr 21, 2005, 05:55 AM

cyberduck too

SMacTech · Apr 21, 2005, 06:54 AM

Originally Posted by mAxximo

If I do it using Transmit, I can read, write, etc. It works. But if I try and use the �Finder� it won't let me copy or even create a new folder. WHY.
I gotta love permissions.

(10.3.9)

How many times you going to bring this up? Transmit is an FTP app, the finder isn't. Get over it already. It is an old insecure protocol that I wouldn't want tied into the OS at the level the Finder is.

Weyland-Yutani · Apr 21, 2005, 07:31 AM

I'm glad Finder doesn't offer FTP handling to any useful degree. Transmit is a really good app for FTP. Consider the AFP protocol that the Finder supports. It is slow. It can freeze you finder. It could be a lot better implemented.

I have not tried the Windows file sharing protocol. I can only imagine it is not all that

mAxximo · Apr 21, 2005, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by SMacTech

How many times you going to bring this up? Transmit is an FTP app, the finder isn't.

This is the first time I ever mentioned this issue. The �Finder� should offer full FTP capabilities or none at all.

Get over it already. It is an old insecure protocol that I wouldn't want tied into the OS at the level the Finder is.

Until Steve says it's OK and you'll go �Wow�. I got you.

mAxximo · Apr 21, 2005, 09:46 AM

Originally Posted by bmedina

A more valid comparison is Windows, which does include full FTP capabilities in Explorer, AFAIK.

maXXimo, do you have control over the server? I've been using Webdav for a similar situation, and its integration with the Finder is pretty good.

I'll give it a try, thanks!

Silky Voice of The Gorn · Apr 21, 2005, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by mAxximo

This is the first time I ever mentioned this issue. The �Finder� should offer full FTP capabilities or none at all.

Dear god I agree with maxximo on something.

chris v · Apr 21, 2005, 09:49 AM

Transmit is so totally woth the money. Fantastic app.

OreoCookie · Apr 21, 2005, 09:54 AM

No flamebaiting, please.

gururafiki · Apr 21, 2005, 10:22 AM

Cyberduck works pretty good, and it is free!

nonhuman · Apr 21, 2005, 10:23 AM

It would be really nice for me if the Finder's FTP wasn't read-only. My office is currently using a G4 iMac as a file server (will become an XServe in the near future, but we're not there yet). Previously we were using AFP to connect. This was fine when we had less than 10 people in the office, but now we're at 11 with 3 more joining in the next month. Since you can only have 10 simultaneous connections to OS X client with AFP I've had to switch everyone over to using a different connection method for getting files form and putting files on the server. The logical choice would be FTP since it's integrated into the server, but no. FTP is crippled in the Finder and completely useless to us. So I had to use SMB which causes other problems with not recognizing file types and not reporting the size of files and things like that. But at least it works...

I can't wait to get my hands on that XServe with Tiger Server so I don't have to deal with the stupid 10 max AFP connection problem anymore.

Millennium · Apr 21, 2005, 10:29 AM

FTP is read-only in the Finder, because FTP is not suited for general file sharing and Apple is trying to discourage its use as such.

Weyland-Yutani · Apr 21, 2005, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by Millennium

FTP is read-only in the Finder, because FTP is not suited for general file sharing and Apple is trying to discourage its use as such.

I use FTP for general file sharing. It is very good. What makes you say it isn't?

Angus_D · Apr 21, 2005, 10:53 AM

Please explain how you seek to the middle of a file on an FTP server, write a byte, and close. Oh, wait, obviously FTP isn't suitable for a filesystem.

Weyland-Yutani · Apr 21, 2005, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by Angus_D

Please explain how you seek to the middle of a file on an FTP server, write a byte, and close. Oh, wait, obviously FTP isn't suitable for a filesystem.

it is a file transfer protocol - is that a file system?

Detrius · Apr 21, 2005, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

I use FTP for general file sharing. It is very good. What makes you say it isn't?

FTP has no support for the resource fork tied with so many of the older Mac stuff. If you put a file on an FTP server (even if it's a Mac) without first compressing it or using some method of retaining the resource fork, then the file will be hosed.

Personally, I'm surprised there's any FTP support in the Finder. The casual user isn't going to understand enough about the shortcomings of FTP to understand how to get around its limitations. I don't think it should be there at all.

Detrius · Apr 21, 2005, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

it is a file transfer protocol - is that a file system?

no more than bash or tcsh is a file system.

milhous · Apr 21, 2005, 11:44 AM

just curious, did the NeXT File Manager have full FTP capabilities?

Angus_D · Apr 21, 2005, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by Detrius

FTP has no support for the resource fork tied with so many of the older Mac stuff. If you put a file on an FTP server (even if it's a Mac) without first compressing it or using some method of retaining the resource fork, then the file will be hosed.

Neither does UFS, FAT32, etc, and all those have write support at the filesystem level.

leperkuhn · Apr 21, 2005, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by Detrius

FTP has no support for the resource fork tied with so many of the older Mac stuff. If you put a file on an FTP server (even if it's a Mac) without first compressing it or using some method of retaining the resource fork, then the file will be hosed.

Yes.. In my opinion this is part of a larger problem.. I work on a laptop, and i use my desktop computer as a server. I needed to get a document written in pages off the server and onto my laptop, so i logged in using SFTP and tried to download the document. But wait, oh, it's a bundle. I had to go in via ssh and zip up the file, then download the zip.

Of course, there was probably a quick way to fix this without doing that, but I didn't know about it. Regardless, apple should provide a way to access files remotely without having to do any extra work.

I suppose I could have used AFP, but I've had really bad results using it outside of my home network.

leperkuhn · Apr 21, 2005, 12:49 PM

well i'm trying using AFP, just so I'm not just being stubborn. I'm getting a lot of beach balls. However, it is usable.

SMacTech · Apr 21, 2005, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by mAxximo

This is the first time I ever mentioned this issue. The �Finder� should offer full FTP capabilities or none at all.

Until Steve says it's OK and you'll go �Wow�. I got you.

Yes, the first time here at MacNN, sorry.

I am to get excited about having full FTP support in the Finder? Got me how ?

chris v · 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by leperkuhn

well i'm trying using AFP, just so I'm not just being stubborn. I'm getting a lot of beach balls. However, it is usable.

The Finder takes for ever to display icons when you use AFP across the 'net. Drives me nuts. I wish it didn't totally lock up until all the icons were drawn. And don't dare click on an audio or video file in column view if you've got the Preview Column on while browsing an AFP share or iDisk. that can give you a two or three minute beachball session. wish there was some way to cancel out of loading the preview when this happens.

Weyland-Yutani · Apr 21, 2005, 01:31 PM

to sum up:

no one here knows why there isn't write support for ftp in the finder, just read support.

leperkuhn · 01:41 PM

there might be read only support because a lot of software is hosted on read only FTP sites. without FTP support there would be no built in way to retreive these files.

but yes, there should either be support, or a bundled FTP app.

Stradlater · Apr 21, 2005, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

to sum up:

no one here knows why there isn't write support for ftp in the finder, just read support.

This seemed like decent reasoning:

Originally Posted by Detrius

FTP has no support for the resource fork tied with so many of the older Mac stuff. If you put a file on an FTP server (even if it's a Mac) without first compressing it or using some method of retaining the resource fork, then the file will be hosed.

Personally, I'm surprised there's any FTP support in the Finder. The casual user isn't going to understand enough about the shortcomings of FTP to understand how to get around its limitations. I don't think it should be there at all.

mitchell_pgh · Apr 21, 2005, 02:06 PM

FTP is NOT secure. There is no reason to use it unless you don't care about the security of your system.

mitchell_pgh · Apr 21, 2005, 02:08 PM

Also, there are a number of free FTP programs to use that are much better than anything Apple could make (Transmit being one of them).

I would rather Apple spend their time on other projects IMHO.

Weyland-Yutani · Apr 21, 2005, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by Stradlater

This seemed like decent reasoning:

Decent, yes but one warning when you are about to send a file with a resource fork through ftp (suggesting you use afp instead for instance) should be fair enough. ftp is a very common file transfer protocol on the internet and it would be very useful to have fully implemented in the OS with all its shortcomings. The times when a Mac user would want to use ftp are would most of the time be in connection with a non-Mac server so it would be unlikely that the user would be sending a file that relies completely on the resource fork because that would be a Mac only file. ftp is very popular to use when updating or adding files to web-pages etc and they don't rely on resource forks at all.

Just thinking out loud.

Weyland-Yutani · Apr 21, 2005, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

FTP is NOT secure. There is no reason to use it unless you don't care about the security of your system.

How is it not secure?

Angus_D · Apr 21, 2005, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

to sum up:

no one here knows why there isn't write support for ftp in the finder, just read support.

FTP does not provide all the functionality required for a file system.

Angus_D · Apr 21, 2005, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

How is it not secure?

It transmits both your passwords and all your data in clear text.

gururafiki · Apr 21, 2005, 02:38 PM

Isn't SFTP (SSH Secure File Transfer) secure? That is a form of FTP...?

turtle777 · Apr 21, 2005, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by gururafiki

Isn't SFTP (SSH Secure File Transfer) secure? That is a form of FTP...?

Yes, that is secure, but not built into the Finder.
There are good SFTP programs out there. Google is your friend.

-t

Kristoff · Apr 21, 2005, 03:28 PM

Oh lord.

Fact is, it's lame.

Why put finder support at all?
Just let Safari open FTP urls like every other browser.
Then, let people use Transmit or suchlike for real (S)FTP tasks?

Weyland-Yutani · Apr 21, 2005, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by Angus_D

FTP does not provide all the functionality required for a file system.

I think it has been quite well established that ftp is not a file system. UFS, HFS+, FAT32 etc are file systems. ftp is a file transfer protocol. afp is not a file system either nor is webdav etc.

Weyland-Yutani · Apr 21, 2005, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by Angus_D

It transmits both your passwords and all your data in clear text.

SFTP is part of the FTP protocol. It encrypts password and data. Finder could well support this, but like writing through FTP it does not. There is no apparent reason for this.

Weyland-Yutani · Apr 21, 2005, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by Kristoff

Oh lord.

Fact is, it's lame.

Why put finder support at all?
Just let Safari open FTP urls like every other browser.
Then, let people use Transmit or suchlike for real (S)FTP tasks?

What is your point?

Kristoff · Apr 21, 2005, 04:50 PM

That it's a stupid feature to try to include in the Finder, if it doesn't include the ability to move, delete, and upload. If it's read only, put it back in the browser where it belongs. Who wants some half-baked support?

leperkuhn · Apr 21, 2005, 05:10 PM

file manipulation should be in the finder, where files are manipulated. not in a web browser. it should be fully functional.

nonhuman · Apr 21, 2005, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by leperkuhn

file manipulation should be in the finder, where files are manipulated. not in a web browser. it should be fully functional.

But web browsers manipulate files too...

tooki · Apr 21, 2005, 05:24 PM

First, let me make a pedantic distinction: the Finder has no support for FTP, HTTP, WebDAV, or any other file transfer protocol, nor for HFS, UFS, FAT, or any other filesystem. Zero. Zilch.

The Finder is a program that allows access to any mounted volume. Mac OS does the mounting, not the Finder. Mac OS X has plug-ins for filesystems in (surprise!) the Filesystems folder inside the System library. Among them are HFS, FAT, UFS, UDF, NTFS, and oddly, FTP. The FTP "filesystem" plugin is a misnomer, because FTP is not a filesystem -- but this plugin makes it appear to the OS as if it were one. It is this plugin which limits it to read-only, probably because performance of a read-write FTP filesystem would absolutely horrifically slow. (Any change you made would require re-uploading the whole file. A real file system allows a file to be "opened" from it, in a programming sense. Transfer protocols like FTP and HTTP do not.)

You can show that it's not the Finder making the connection because you can access a mounted FTP server from any application's Open dialog box.

Note that FTP isn't the only read-only filesystem plugin: NTFS. This is because of other reasons, but the result is the same.

So if someone wanted to, they could write a read-write FTP filesystem plugin. It'd be really handy for web developers. But the potential for abuse is high, and whoever writes such a plugin (be it Apple or someone else) would have to put up with a ton of users complaining about its performance.

Just use a "real" FTP app when you need to upload.

tooki

leperkuhn · Apr 21, 2005, 05:25 PM

there isn't a seperate app to connect to a remote fileserver via AFP. similar situation.

tooki · Apr 21, 2005, 05:34 PM

P.S. Another sign that FTP isn't a real file system is that (since it doesn't actually allow files to be "opened"), it cannot keep track of opened files -- so you can unmount an FTP server even if you have files open on it. This will crash most apps that have files opened on them, by the way.

tooki · Apr 21, 2005, 05:38 PM

Originally Posted by leperkuhn

there isn't a seperate app to connect to a remote fileserver via AFP. similar situation.

Right -- but that's because AFP is a filesystem, so it attaches to the OS, not an application. AFP is a true network filesystem, allowing opened files, etc. Someone could write an AFP client to do uploads/downloads, but why bother when the OS can handle it?

tooki