[tinrib]

Originally posted by masskinner:
<STRONG>

/usr/bin/ftp will not resume a download. Transmit will not resume a download. That leaves Fetch, InterArchy, and ncftp, which do resume. What other clients are you refering to?</STRONG>

of course /usr/bin/ftp will resume a download. the command is reget. resuming a download is a pretty standard and necessary feature of ftp clients. transmit will resume too. Even Internet Explorer can resume ftp downloads, unless the server at the other end doesn't support resuming.

[tinrib]

Originally posted by Wm. McLain Causey:
<STRONG>

xman is the X windows manual viewer. I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing, though. But I would suggest 'man ncftp'

It seems that installing and running X windows is far beyond the capabilities of some of the posters, who cannot even use a command line.

That's pathetic. I started developing webpages using vi, emacs, and ftp years ago. I consider these relatively simple utilities, but sheesh I can't imagine how cryptic they would be to someone who can't even use ftp (laF) I now consider utilities like ncftp luxuries. Even as a devotee of Classic, I found cause to use telnet and operate out of a shell at times.

Anyone who uses computers in a professional capacity should have at least a basic understanding of their operating system. Anyone who is in the internet business should know how to use ftp, period. It's not rocket science, after all.</STRONG>

why does using the terminal give you a better understanding of the operating system? why would using ftp through the terminal give you any more insight than using interarchy?

the command line is just a separate interface - /usr/bin/ftp is just an application like any other it just doesn't have mouse support or funky graphics. Most people do NOT need to know this. Hell are you saying that the pre-os X mac was insufficient for anyone who actually used their computers in a professional capacity?

[masskinner]

Originally posted by tinrib:
<STRONG>

of course /usr/bin/ftp will resume a download. the command is reget. resuming a download is a pretty standard and necessary feature of ftp clients. transmit will resume too. Even Internet Explorer can resume ftp downloads, unless the server at the other end doesn't support resuming.</STRONG>

I'm sorry. I didn't make myself clear. /usr/bin/ftp does not have *auto* resume. It is not smart enough to figure out when it must resume. As you have stated, you must manually invoke the reget command. There is no such reget command in ncftp because it is built into the get command. One command is easier than two, no?

As for Transmit, when I actually get it to successfully auto resume, then I will believe it has the capability to do so.

Don't even suggest Explorer is an FTP alternative...

[Diggory Laycock]

InterArchy every time.

[Camelot]

Originally posted by &lt;lex&gt;:
<STRONG>Best client out there is ncftp. Unfortunately, I haven't found any binaries on the net. You have to compile it yourself, but it's not that hard (if you have the Developer Tools installed). Open Terminal. go to the directory where you plan on saving the source file. [snip]</STRONG>

Apparently Mac OS X 10.1 includes ncftp since I have it installed and know I've never downloaded and compiled it.

However, after having tried it, I hate it.

From what I can tell, ncftp doesn't support passive ftp. This means that people behind firewalls (like me) can't use it. What good is that?

The bookmark thing looks handy, but can be fully utilized because "the program doesn't have the curses library". Although this is likely more an Mac OS X thing than ncftp it doesn't help much. However, all GUI's that I'm aware of support bookmarking, as does the command-line ftp via the .netrc file (man ftp)

The ncftp command set doesn't seem as full as the built-in ftp client:

Apple's FTP:
<font face = "courier">! debug mget put size
$ dir mkdir pwd status
account disconnect mls quit struct
append form mode quote system
ascii get modtime recv sunique
bell glob mput reget tenex
binary hash newer rstatus trace
bye help nmap rhelp type
case idle nlist rename user
cd image ntrans reset umask
cdup lcd open restart verbose
chmod ls passive rmdir ?
close macdef prompt runique
cr mdelete proxy send
delete mdir sendport site
</font>

ncftp:
<font face = "courier">! create lcd mkdir pls quit site
bookmark debug lls mode predir quote type
bookmarks dir lookup mput put rhelp version
cat echo lpage open pwd rm
cd get lpwd page redir rmdir
close help ls pdir rename set
</font>

Now I'm sure some of the commands are used rarely, if ever, but that's still a significant difference.

As for whoever it was that needed to connect to a specific port, Interarchy, for one, can connect to a different port using the standard port notation hostname ort so ftp://ftp.somehost.com:99/ would connect you to an ftp server running on port 99. I'm sure most other ftp clients also follow this standard.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Wm. McLain Causey:
<STRONG>What happens when some stooge who hasn't taken the time to use his command line can't modify the permissions on his /Applications folder to enable him to move apps there?</STRONG>

That "stooge" would probably just Show Info on the Applications folder and fix its permissions. And for those cases where Show Info doesn't do what you want, Rainer Brockerhoff's XRay, which is hopefully what the Show Info box will look like in the future, allows you to change more things than even the man page for chmod tells you about.

Originally posted by asxless:
[QB]

Oh, I got your point in your very first post in this thread. It is just that I very strongly disagree with both it and your use of pejorative terms like "pathetic" to describe those that don't agree with your point of view hence are unwilling to learn Unix just to use their Mac.

Now that makes no sense. That's like saying someone is unwilling to learn MacOS just to use their Mac.

The purpose of my "irrelevant meanderings regarding programming antique equipment." was to establish that I have had a lot of experience with computers in general and primitive user interfaces in particular. The Unix command line interface is as old as the Teletype (TTY) that I described using in the 1960s and just as relevant to most people's computing requirements on their Macs today.

The windowing interface is now getting quite old too. Does that invalidate it? Does that make it "primitive?" When we have virtual environments as operating systems vis-a-vis Gibson's Cyberspace, I'll call our current technologies "primitive."

What ever happened to the virtue of the time-tested, the tried-and-true? The Unix interface is in fact not as old as the teletype, and in fact is almost 40 years younger (I think teletypes entered service with Bell in 1930, and Unix's infancy began in 1969). And it's now running in a customizable terminal window, or do you you have stdout routed to a line printer? I think that paper to screen is a bigger leap than console to window. And sure, some of the basic commands are the same as when the operating system was originally written. But it is a completely different animal. The kernel has been rewritten repeatedly and new shells have been introduced and updated. To equate the Unix of today to the Unix that introduced timesharing in the '70s is ridiculous. To realize that the system has been around long enough to improve a thousandfold is wise. Taking advantage of the millions of man-hours invested in improving this operating system saved Apple billions of dollars in development, while providing them with a solid, powerful, and interoperable platform.

For those interested in the Unix underpinnings of OS X, the Terminal and the thousands of hidden files/folders are there for their computing enjoyment. But for the "rest of us", if Apple and the software community can not mature OS X, and the GUI applications that run on it, so that the majority of Mac users do not EVER need to open the Terminal window they will have failed.

You are not the arbiter of Apple's success. OS X has a ways to go, as does any program. Every piece of software is a work in progress. But OS X is already the best desktop OS out there, IMO.

The good news, as I see it, is that I have not had to type a single Terminal command since 10.1 was released. So I'm hopeful that Apple will finally create an OS, based on Unix, that will be used on more than a few percent of desktops.

Well you certainly aren't getting the most of your computer then, or you use it in a very limited capacity. I'd waste a lot of time without tools like sed, awk, and cron. I think it's great to be able to automate tasks and compile my own code. I also think it's great to have the entirety of open source software available for free.

gato[~]#open /Applications/OmniW*.app http://www.darwinfo.org

Originally posted by CharlesS:
<STRONG>

That "stooge" would probably just Show Info on the Applications folder and fix its permissions. And for those cases where Show Info doesn't do what you want, Rainer Brockerhoff's XRay, which is hopefully what the Show Info box will look like in the future, allows you to change more things than even the man page for chmod tells you about.</STRONG>

Show Info doesn't work if the ownership is root. You can't override these permissions unless you su(do) it.

Third party software shouldn't have to be involved.

Originally posted by tinrib:
<STRONG>

why does using the terminal give you a better understanding of the operating system? why would using ftp through the terminal give you any more insight than using interarchy?

Interarchy is great. Knowing ftp commands is just smart. ftp is such a widespread application. If you work in a multiplatform environment, you can use ftp from almost any of the platforms you're using.

An example of where knowledge of the shell helps you would be the aforereferenced chmod command, for instance. The power user will find countless other instances where the command line is either the quickest or the only way to get something done.

In a way, using ftp would give you more insight into the workings of the protocol. Rather than dragging an icon you're seeing how your software interfaces with the remote server. For many users, this may be as neccesary as seeing the sendmail transaction on port 25. Which is to say, not very.

the command line is just a separate interface - /usr/bin/ftp is just an application like any other it just doesn't have mouse support or funky graphics. Most people do NOT need to know this. Hell are you saying that the pre-os X mac was insufficient for anyone who actually used their computers in a professional capacity?</STRONG>

Nope. I said distinctly that a web professional should understand ftp and that any computer professional should understand their operating system.

The main point was that it's foolish to be turn your head away from the shell. It makes you a more capable user to have at least a cursory familiarity with your operating system.

[tinrib]

Originally posted by masskinner:
<STRONG>

I'm sorry. I didn't make myself clear. /usr/bin/ftp does not have *auto* resume. It is not smart enough to figure out when it must resume. As you have stated, you must manually invoke the reget command.</STRONG>

Is this a bug or a feature? Lets say you have an image01.jpg in your current directory, and you are ftping some stuff - one of the files is also called image01.jpg. Should it rename it image01.jpg1 (or however it renames it) or WITHOUT asking you resume with the other image, corrupting it? If I need to resume a download I KNOW I have to resume it so typing reget is not a problem. Well 2 extra letters, I suppose. It's all wear and tear on my keyboard.

Originally posted by &lt;McLain Causey&gt;:
<STRONG>Well you certainly aren't getting the most of your computer then, or you use it in a very limited capacity. I'd waste a lot of time without tools like sed, awk, and cron. I think it's great to be able to automate tasks and compile my own code. I also think it's great to have the entirety of open source software available for free.

gato[~]#open /Applications/OmniW*.app http://www.darwinfo.org</STRONG>

yeah.

mate. sed and awk aren't for everybody. I want my Mum to be able to work the computer, to be able to do stuff. In OS 9 she can do loads. But I can't see her learning sed and awk. And I can't see any use she could have for either.

Can you imagine trying to teach YOUR mum sed and awk? or even how to ftp from the terminal? it would be easier just to show her interarchy, no? Well same with other people - some people don't have the time and/or inclination and/or need to learn "geeky" ways to do what they have already been doing for years and what can be done more easily and often just as if not more effectively with a GUI app.

[ 12-10-2001: Message edited by: tinrib ]

[opsotta]

After what I could read in this topic about Interarchy I would like to try it.
But it seems not to be running without to bee registered - no trial possible!?

Originally posted by livemotion:
<STRONG>Does anyone know of a good FTP client I can use in osX until Dreamweaver becomes carbonized?</STRONG>

a great company http://www.vandyke.com/ has the most amazing ssh clients and ftp over ssh called sercure FX for windows. I have been flooding them with emails to port both of these products to os x without luck. Please ask them to port over sercure fx for os x as it is completely amazing!

IT authenticates over ssh so passwords are not sent clear text and the file transfers are excellent very fast, and you can edit files straight from the server like bbedit!

[smeger]

Interarchy tunnels over SSH and lets you edit files directly by launching BBEdit, too. I'm an Interarchy zealot...

For the person who asked about their trial software, I think they've got a free trial on their yahoo group. They used to, anyway.

I don't have any affiliation with them, by the way. I just like their software.

[Diggory Laycock]

After what I could read in this topic about Interarchy I would like to try it.
But it seems not to be running without to bee registered - no trial possible!?

Unfortunately not, they recently elevated themselves out of the shareware market and into the boxed-software market (except there's no box - you download it.) Which is a pretty shrewd move.

But I have to say it is good and if you're into that kind of thing it's completely skinnable.

[Mark Barton]

Originally posted by Mediaman_12:
<STRONG>If OSX has allready got a (Terminal) FTP app can't someone wright a nice Gui shell for it. (Like that commpression app or all the firewall front end's there is) why use a full bulky app (I like small simple apps fro simple stuff, my favorite FTP app is Fetch) if you allready have an adequte FTP prog.</STRONG>

If you really want a GUI shell for the inbuilt FTP, you might look at RBrowser. The performance is a bit clunky, but I use it because it can handle a variety of different security options, including SFTP and SSH+SCP. It's currently free but may be shareware in the future when the author completes the feature set.

Cheers,

Mark B.

Originally posted by masskinner:
<STRONG>

/usr/bin/ftp will not resume a download. Transmit will not resume a download. That leaves Fetch, InterArchy, and ncftp, which do resume. What other clients are you refering to?</STRONG>

/usr/bin/ftp will resume if you use reget instead of get

Originally posted by masskinner:
<STRONG>

I'm sorry. I didn't make myself clear. /usr/bin/ftp does not have *auto* resume. It is not smart enough to figure out when it must resume. As you have stated, you must manually invoke the reget command. There is no such reget command in ncftp because it is built into the get command. One command is easier than two, no?

As for Transmit, when I actually get it to successfully auto resume, then I will believe it has the capability to do so.

Don't even suggest Explorer is an FTP alternative...</STRONG>

Then why don't you just get used to always using reget?!?

[John Nicholas]

A new one no one has mentioned is osXigen.
http://www.jomosoft.com/osXigen.html

This is a cocoa ftp program that has several unique features including transfering from one ftp site to another (great for moving files from a test server to a production server) and it can transfer based on wildcard filters. It multitask very well too. It uses a window for each site and a window for the file system rather than the 2 pane approach.

I like Transmit okay but sometimes I want to see all the other info (date modified etc) and often it get stuck saying 'waiting for server to cancel'

[droosan]

I have tried all these GUI ftp clients. I don't ask for much. I want one which will allow me to do basic ftp operations over a modem, without crashing, freezing, or dying. None pass this rather basic test.

(I hadn't heard of oXigen so I just now downloaded it and tried it. It kind of worked for a couple minutes and then simply stopped responding to transfer commands. My local window repeatedly displays "listing contents...")

I use Transmit because it comes the closest. It crashes when you try to transfer from one location to another on the same server. Yes, that is a rather significant "issue." They say they're working on it. Apart from that, it works.

[jblakeh1]

Using a command line to ftp web sites is great if you have a file or two, but not very practical for lots of directories and files, like as web sites typically have. I can do both and rarely use the command line... only as a last resort.

In response to this 'Lookit me, lookit me, I can use emacs and man pages and command line' attitude: Great. I can still hand-kern 8-point type with an x-acto blade and wax, shoot photostats to resize and apply halftones to images, but why would I?

Why anyone would choose the most time consuming, tedious option to get something done if something better exists?

[ginoledesma]

I sometimes prefer Fetch. At certain times, it seems to transfer data faster than Transmit. On our switched 100Mbps LAN, Fetch can sometimes reach speeds of 7MB/s, averaging 4-5MB/s, whereas Transmit peaks at 6MB/s and averages at 3-4.5MB/s.

[ginoledesma]

Originally posted by jblakeh1:
<STRONG>Using a command line to ftp web sites is great if you have a file or two, but not very practical for lots of directories and files, like as web sites typically have. I can do both and rarely use the command line... only as a last resort.</STRONG>

I agree. While the command line ftp program has its uses (for example, logging in remotely to your machine to ftp a file elsewhere), the GUI programs have their place. Click and drag is wonderful in that you drag a folder and then the program (supposedly) uploads all the files in that folder and does so recursively, creating folders as necessary.

While this is also possible with a command line ftp program, sometimes remembering the syntax of how to do so is too much.

[chatwood2]

I am actually working on an FTP program that might interest some of you. It has some unique features including:

- Not a client application, the application runs as a servlet on a remote server, thus no software to install
- The application runs in a browser, any will do, even lynx
- It currently supports get, rename, delete, and a powerful tree file browsing.

I'm just started on this so I have a long way to go including:
- put
- file moving
- making it more secure (right all info (including password) is in URL)
- allowing for ssh embedding

Next week I'll post a link to the app and let you guys try it out.

- Chris

[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: chatwood2 ]

[Gary Finley]

Wow, flame wars over using a terminal. Some folks take themselves *way* too seriously. I'm with the other old geek who's written assembler and survived other such rites of passage. Just because you know how to do things the hard way doesn't mean you want to. A good GUI ftp client is convenient. I was waiting for the Transmit folks to fix some of the basic bugs (like being unable to change the far-end directory), when I found Captain FTP. It seems to work just great. http://captainftp.xdsnet.de

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by masskinner:
<STRONG>

I'm sorry. I didn't make myself clear. /usr/bin/ftp does not have *auto* resume. It is not smart enough to figure out when it must resume. As you have stated, you must manually invoke the reget command. There is no such reget command in ncftp because it is built into the get command. One command is easier than two, no?</STRONG>

Argh, this is what AOL used to do, way back in the dark ages of 2400 bps access when I used it. Sometimes I would cancel a download, and trash the half-downloaded file. Then, if I ever changed my mind and tried to download it again, it would remember that I downloaded half of it and try to resume, even though the original half-downloaded file had been deleted, so there was no way to download the file without trashing preferences, simply because there weren't separate commands for downloading and resuming.

My favourite quote from all of the exchanges i've read thus far has to be "It's this Luddite fear of the command line that's going to have to be expunged." Very funny.

Now, the subject at hand, one other option that might be of help is wget, which has a number of gui's available, all of which can be found searching via versiontracker for free. I'm still periodically using Interarchy for ftp on my site (which is what the original post was about?), but then most of my ftp usage is downloading files which is where wget is nice and light. Depending on the front end gui, i think you can keep mirrors of sites too etc. I need to explore this more before ditching Interarchy. Good luck and all the best.Version Tracker

FETCH...nice, small and faster....http://fetchsoftworks.com/

Apparently Interarchy and Gideon both support SFTP (ftp transfers over an encrypted ssh session). Interarchy even looks like the FTP Disk will work over SFTP too. Nice.

[Hennker]

What kind of amuses me is, that only one person brought up -long filename support-. Its the biggest lack of nearly all ftp apps discussed here.
OSX supports them, but until now i only discovered 2 ftp-apps capable of it, RBrowser and osXigen.
RBrowser is very unstable for me and has a kind of ugly UI IMHO. I heard the first time of osXigen in this thread, so i havent tested it, but it looks really promising.
I just hope the developers of all the other ftp apps will recognize this as one of the major problems right now. In the big world of inet there are so many long file names, it renders nearly all of the ftp apps unusable for me

Hennker

[freeandunmuzzled]

i like interarchy but it costs $45. ncftp is free and already on my mac so i use that because i am a cheapskate. i don't like any of the other gui ftp apps on x so far.

and i am a long time mac user. i just don't find tpying "get file", "lcd" ~/downloads" too taxing on my intellect. and my crt-black terminal with amber type looks so old skool.

[osiris]

Fetch is great. I prefer an older (3.x) version as I think it's faster than the newer releases.

[chatwood2]

I finally got my server back up, it has taken me more hours than I would like to count. But it is done, yes!!

So, if you want to check out my ftp app here are the links:

For those with CMU nameservers (probably none of you):
http://firsthalf.res.cmu.edu/ftp/servlet/Blue

For the rest of the world:
http://128.2.166.235/ftp/servlet/Blue

Some usage notes:
- downloads, rename, and delete do work
- to look at the contents of a folder click on the "+" sign
- to perform an action of a file or folder click on its name
- when logging onto anonymous ftp servers you must enter your name and password as "anonymous"
- DO NOT USE THIS ON A PUBLIC COMPUTER : login information is stored in the URL, and people looking though the browser history could see that information (which is bad)

Remember that:
- uploads do not work even though there is a button
- move does not work even though there is a button

If anyone has any problems, ideas, or questions just ask. And remember this is in active development.

- Chris

[workerbee]

Originally posted by asxless:
<STRONG>
But for the "rest of us", if Apple and the software community can not mature OS X, and the GUI applications that run on it, so that the majority of Mac users do not EVER need to open the Terminal window they will have failed.</STRONG>

Best and truest single sentence in the entire thread, axless.

Let the pimple-faced terminal w******* get their shivering drooling excitement over their masterly use of said terminal, while moving on to more interesting (at least for those who have been there, done that) stuff.

The main point was that it's foolish to be turn your head away from the shell. It makes you a more capable user to have at least a cursory familiarity with your operating system.

Oh, so now the shell is our operating system?
The GUI is just fluff (a lot of it, too) on top of it, I guess?

[ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: workerbee ]

[shellsuit]

Originally posted by workerbee:
<STRONG>

Oh, so now the shell is our operating system?
The GUI is just fluff (a lot of it, too) on top of it, I guess?

</STRONG>

yes

[asxless]

Originally posted by shellsuit:
<STRONG>

yes</STRONG>

Actually... NO. The "shell" is just ONE of several user interfaces for the Mac OS X operating system.

asxless in iLand

[shellsuit]

Originally posted by asxless:
<STRONG>

Actually... NO. The "shell" is just ONE of several user interfaces for the Mac OS X operating system.

asxless in iLand</STRONG>

It's also the one with all the cool functionality and commands - gasp - already there!

[ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: shellsuit ]

[asxless]

Originally posted by shellsuit:
<STRONG>It's also the one with all the cool functionality and commands - gasp - already there!</STRONG>

Like in this User Friendly cartoon... http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20020120

asxless in iLand

LoL, asxless, that User Friendly cartoon is hilarious. I think it summarizes my viewpoint on GUI vs. CLI succintly. I use Terminal if i HAVE to, otherwise, if a GUI-based alternative exists, then I would most definitely prefer that.

To those in McLain Causey's camp, who think that anyone that doesn't know emacs is a "pathetic" computer user, I say: WHY should I have to learn emacs when there are perfectly good graphical-based text editors available? Given a choice, I think GUI-based text editors are easier to use and more importantly easier to learn. Does this make me "pathetic"? If you still think so, well then, you're entitled your opinion and I'm entitled to mine.

There are times when GUI-based alternatives aren't available. Like the previously mentioned example of file permissions. In those type of situations, I have no choice but to use Terminal. Key word here is CHOICE. Apple has the opportunity now to build the best operating system out there. It should provide its users with a choice as to how they accomplish their tasks, whether it be through Aqua or Terminal, not forcing its users to learn either one if they don't want to.

McLain Causey, you mentioned that computer users should have an "intellectual curiosity," which somehow drives them to learn more about the command line. You need to understand that not everyone has the desire, and perhaps the intellectual capacity, to learn about the technical details of command line. YOU might possess that knowledge, but for a whole bunch of other Mac users, and particularly Apple's core customer base of Education, Graphic Design, and Home users, having to use the CLI for a task is a chore. Are they stupid? No. They could no doubt show you a thing or two about their own personal intellectual pursuits that they've spent years crafting. That is why Apple should provide its users with a choice and not force them to rely on the command line to do things for which no alternative method exists.

The command line has its piece of the pie. So does the GUI. Although I wish it had a bigger slice

[jblakeh1]

It's also the one with all the cool functionality and commands - gasp - already there!

Yeah! Of course, it takes 20 minutes of typing to move a typical web site hiearchy of files from one place to another... gasp. (20 minutes later: already there!).

Drag and drop, baby. Drag and drop.

Originally posted by livemotion:
<STRONG>I'm a mac user. what do I know about unix and terminals. Transmit works like a charm. Thanks! </STRONG>

Oh, it's not hard, just type:

ftp your.server.site
log in
type ls to display dir listing
cd to change dir
get to get the file you want, unless you forget the name, then it's ls again if you haven't changed directories in which case you'd better pwd and then ls and...

no friggin' wonder they invented a GUI!

[warnergt]

I like Fetch but, the last time I used it for files with very long names, it truncated them. I reverted to the command line ftp to get the files.

Is this filename length problem a known problem with Fetch?

We have here an OS based on Unix that has command line access to ftp. It also has command line access to cd, ls, rm, rmdir, and all that, but we use the Finder for most file management tasks, because it is more visual and puts more information on the screen. So why can't we use the Finder for ftp?

I see no reason why we can't simply hit cmd-K (Go:Connect to server...) in the Finder, type in an ftp site's coordinates, and mount that ftp site disk in the Finder just like any AppleShare volume. Except that Apple has not yet implemented this, as far as I can tell.

Why the heck should we need to use another program to deal with files, just because they are on another computer? This flies in the face of Apple's excellent prior approach to file sharing.

Apple needs to fix this...

TomEM

[cutterjohn]

a few notes:
the version of ncftp supplied with OS X 10.1.x is an older version, and does not completely support alot of the current ncftp features.

as a fix, I would suggest installation of the fink package which will allow relatively easy installation of an updated version of ncftp, as well as alternate shells, rootless X, etc. ad nauseum.

As a caution be careful of installing fink packages that duplicate current mac os x binaries, as the fink setup places its path FIRST in the path list, such that the newer version of ncftp will be run from the command line when a user account is setup as Fink recomends/requires(?). (i.e. the old mac os x version of ncftp is NOT removed, when a user types ncftp blah blah on the command line the fink path is searched for the app BEFORE the normal apple location when running the shell with the preferred .tcshrc modification. If you choose to not add the .tcshrc startup mod(changes PATH shell variable, you WILL have to runt he newer version of ncftp by executing /sw/bin/ncftp, i.e. the fully qualified path plus app name.)

All right, further side node, the .tcshrc file if it exists in the users home directory top level is loaded at shell startup time(Apple also has an alternate setup scheme, but I haven't tried that yet). Things like additional command to be run at shell startup time, modifications to default shell variables, aliases, etc. may be placed in here to modify shell behavior. In particular the PATH variable tells the shell where to look for executables, and the shell will start with the path to the rightmost of the assignement operator, and precede to the paths to the left until it either finds the command/app or doesn't. If it does NOT find the command it will return a command not found error message. BTW: There is a README buried somewhere in the system path explaining Apple's modification to where you put various things to started by the at startup time. e.g. aliases will have something like a tcshrc.aliases file name, etc. and reside in the ~/Library/Preferences directory. This is NON-STANDARD for every other system running tcsh. (Also note, similarly BASH looks for .bashrc, csh looks for .cshrc, etc. Additionally global system defaults for shell startup reside in the /etc directory structure, e.g. csh.login)

GUI v. shell: some tasks are easier with a GUI, some from a CLI. e.g. file selection: I can write a wicked file selection line that will grab some apps and not others that would take a boatload of clicking with a GUI.

Shell apps will, generally, use less CPU time as well.

Shell apps are accessible remotely without much tinkering. (Yes you may run VNC, and get the GUI, but its always sssllloooowwwww.)

BTW: IIRC fink is at: fink.sourceforge.net

edit: I have to add this: do yourself a favor if you are using OS X, and learn at least the basics of using a particular shell. BASH is popular with Linux and is usually it's default shell, but you WILL have to add this yourself for OSX as *BSD & OSX generally use tcsh as their default shell. Pick up a nice light book of UNIX or look around the web for tutorials. Why? Because as another user pointed out you are only using a portion of OS X's utility if you stick to only the GUI, and there ARE some things that are more readily accomplished via a command line.

[ 02-17-2002: Message edited by: cutterjohn ]

[Janger]

Originally posted by tinrib:
<STRONG>Interarchy is good with it's ftp disk feature - and stable I always found that transmit crashes.

ftping in the terminal is useful sometimes - I use it if I am sshed into one of my servers and i need to transfer stuff from another server. But it's not a replacement for anarchy, its an addition. Use the tool that seems right at the time. For most people this will be a GUI app such as interarchy.

Philzilla needs to get a life. Smart arsed twat.</STRONG>

Interarchy is my favorite app, Transmit is a little too GUI... not flexible enough IMHO. But I recently discovered a problem with FTP clients: The .DS_Store files get transferred along with other files, so I cannot delete directories without manually deleting those invisible files. Quite annoying. So the terminal is the safest way.

Originally posted by &lt;Hallow&gt;:
<STRONG>Apparently Interarchy and Gideon both support SFTP (ftp transfers over an encrypted ssh session). Interarchy even looks like the FTP Disk will work over SFTP too. Nice.</STRONG>

There's a confusion here: SFTP and FTP are two completely different protocols. Interarchy is NOT an SFTP client (yet ?).

If you want to have a look at the sftp draft, it's here:

&lt;http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-secsh-filexfer-02.txt&gt;

- Jean-Pierre.

[Armando]

Originally posted by typoon:
<STRONG>So far the best one I have found is Transmit. The new Beta 1.7b2 is quite nice.</STRONG>

I also use Transmit and I found it to be one of the fastest FTP clients. Give it a try: www.panic.com

I'm all with asxless. The computer is a tool -- a means to an end, not (except for a small minority) an end in itself. You don't sit down at a computer *wanting* to type at a command line, any more than you sit down *wanting* to push a mouse and click buttons. You sit down at a computer wanting to write a letter, or find some information, or book a flight, or design a brochure, or play a game. To the vast majority of users, the vast majority of the time, "using the power" of a computer has very little to do with hacking around its innards, and everything to do with achieving your goals efficiently, easily, and enjoyably.

If you're a very technical person who really enjoys knowing everything about your computer, and tinkering around inside to tweak and fix and customize and get everything done at a low level, that's great for you. But saying that *everyone* should have the same attitude and work habits is rather short-minded and egotistical.

I'm a fairly technical guy, I like to know how things work (and how they could work better). I know more than the average Joe does about how an automobile works. On the odd weekend, I may want to change the oil, cap the plugs, rewire the stereo, or rotate the tires, but that puts me in a very small minority of drivers. 99.99% of the time, when I get in my car, I don't want to rip open the dash, short some wires, massage the choke, tweak the timing, or really worry about any of the inner workings of the car at all. I just want to get where I'm going.

The original genius of the metaphorically driven GUI was that it was user-centric, not machine-centric. It presented everything in the computer in terms that the average person might understand. There will always be a place for people who understand and enjoy the inner workings of computers, but stop sneering down at people who'd rather just get where they're going.

[nbouwsma]

Originally posted by livemotion:
<STRONG>Does anyone know of a good FTP client I can use in osX until Dreamweaver becomes carbonized?</STRONG>

I really liked Vicomsoft FTP (www.vicomsoft.com). No OS X client yet. I use Interarchy right now in OS X.

[moki]

Originally posted by Wm. McLain Causey:
<STRONG>
xman is the X windows manual viewer. I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing, though. But I would suggest 'man ncftp'

It seems that installing and running X windows is far beyond the capabilities of some of the posters, who cannot even use a command line.</STRONG>

If you believe that your average OS X user is going to bother installing X Windows, you're completely out of touch with reality.

Originally posted by Wm. McLain Causey:
<STRONG>Anyone who uses computers in a professional capacity should have at least a basic understanding of their operating system. Anyone who is in the internet business should know how to use ftp, period. It's not rocket science, after all.</STRONG>

In a word, bullshit.

I wager you drive your car to work every day, but haven't a clue in the world how to properly replace the head gasket, adjust your valve timing, or even something so "simple" as throwing on a new timing chain/band.

The entire point of computers is that people should be able to do things with them that they couldn't do otherwise (or not as easily). Computers are about user empowerment.

They donot need to know how they work any more than you should need to know how your car works in order to drive it to work every day. Some of the most brilliant people I know have zero interest in learning all of the geekisms about using a computer: they just want to get their work done.

That computers are still hard enough to use that technical knowledge is often necessary is a failure of the computer industry, not the user.

.....

Now, onto the topic of FTP clients -- I prefer the interface of Transmit by far, but alas, it does seem to crash fairly often. I really just can't handle the "Internet Appliance" direction that Anarchy has taken (though I realize some people love it), so I continue to use Fetch, even though the OS X version is fairly marginal.

[ 03-03-2002: Message edited by: moki ]

[Chemmy]

Why would anyone install ncftp? I've never installed it, so I can only assume if you're running X.1.3, you have it already on your computer.

To whoever wanted to know how to use ncftp, here goes.

Type "ncftp", hit return.
Type "open -up [port number] [server address]", hit return.
Type your user name, hit return.
Type your password, hit return.

Now you're free to put files up on the server. Use cd [directory] to move into the directory you need to put your files in, and type dir to see what's in the folder you're currently in.

To put a file on the server:

Type put [filename] and hit return.

One note on filenames, if you have a picture picture.jpg in your Pictures folder, in your OS X home, and your username is chemmy, the filename is /users/chemmy/pictures/picture.jpg.

I hope that helped someone.

By the way, it should look like this: