[waffffffle]

I was wondering if anyone here could tell me if Tiger has improved support for NTFS and FTP. Specifically I am looking for write support since right now both are read only in Panther. Thanks.

[Thinine]

No.

NTFS is a closed MS standard that can be accessed only through reverse engineering. There are some drivers available that have write capability, but they aren't reliable enough to be made part of an OS release.

FTP through the Finder will likely remain read only, probably because of the difficulties associated with treating an FTP share as a local file system.

[waffffffle]

HFS+ is also a proprietary format, and since Apple is willing to offer read capability to NTFS, I don't see why they wouldn't offer write as well. It is very frustrating when trying to deal with windows hard disks.

As for FTP writing, Windows can do it, and has been able to do it for years. Apple really needs to get on this. It is extremely frustrating that the capability isn't there.

[Thinine]

They can read NTFS because reading can't damage the disk. The writing component is known as unreliable because it has a tendency to corrupt disks.

And AFAIK, Windows has never been able to mount FTP shares as a local directory. Of course, you can browse FTP shares through IE, but it's not the best client, and that's read only as well.

[waffffffle]

Originally posted by Thinine:
They can read NTFS because reading can't damage the disk. The writing component is known as unreliable because it has a tendency to corrupt disks.

And AFAIK, Windows has never been able to mount FTP shares as a local directory. Of course, you can browse FTP shares through IE, but it's not the best client, and that's read only as well.

In windows the concept of "mounting" volumes is more abstracted. If you open an FTP url in Windows it will appear as a folder window, from which you can browse, delete, copy to, and copy from items. There is full read/write support in Windows, and Apple needs this.

As for NTFS, it is extremely frustrating that the only format hard disk that can be shared between Macs and PCs is FAT, because that 2 GB file limit is an absolute pain. Apple really needs to do something to make it easier to share disks. Either they give us full support of NTFS or they create a software extension to give read write support of HFS+ for Windows, which I don't think is likely.

[larkost]

Window's idea of filesystems is no more (or less) abstracted than MacOS X's. The difference is that Apple has acknowledged that FTP a really bad protocol for remote filesystems as it provides none of the important features for that. So things can go really wrong and you can lose/destroy data. Microsoft on the other hand blithely ignores that and lets their customers unknowingly shoot themselves in the foot. I like Apple's approach better.

As to a good large format filesystem to use as a go-between, I would suggest using ext2, one of linux's filesystems. There are drivers for both MacOS X and WinXP drivers available. It is about as universal as you are gong to get. Or, you can buy the commercial HFS+ driver for Windows... but I get the feeling that you are not doing this for professional use.

[Superchicken]

I've given up on complaining about a lack of FTP support in the finder... and don't tell me that the current implementation counts as support. That said open source projects like Fugu and Cyberduck are getting good enough that to be honest... I don't care any more I'll just use them... now if only they'd work as a finder replacement then we could give Apple some competition

[Visnaut]

Originally posted by Thinine:
And AFAIK, Windows has never been able to mount FTP shares as a local directory. Of course, you can browse FTP shares through IE, but it's not the best client, and that's read only as well.

That's actually not true. Type in an FTP address into a Windows Explorer window, and you can browse it like a local disk. The fact is, a shitty old Windows 98 machine can browse my mac via FTP in a much more intuitive fashion than any client on Mac OS X or Windows. Why? Because you can work with files and folders almost just like on any other disk!

It seems ass-backwards to me that a Windows 98 machine has better built-in FTP support than even Tiger will appear to have. It's bloody 2005 already!

The sad thing is, even most Windows users don't know about it. I've had teachers in web design class shove down our throats that people HAVE to download FTP clients to upload their files, when really, just typing in the ftp address into Windows Explorer will do it. And quite well too.

Originally posted by larkost:
Window's idea of filesystems is no more (or less) abstracted than MacOS X's. The difference is that Apple has acknowledged that FTP a really bad protocol for remote filesystems as it provides none of the important features for that. So things can go really wrong and you can lose/destroy data. Microsoft on the other hand blithely ignores that and lets their customers unknowingly shoot themselves in the foot. I like Apple's approach better.

I really don't understand your assertion. What important features do you speak of? Sure, I can't drag files to the trash (they have to be deleted outright), but how is this any different than a mounted AFP or SMB share? How have I shot myself in the foot the last few years I've successfully moved data with Windows' built-in FTP?

[larkost]

Originally posted by Visnaut:
I really don't understand your assertion. What important features do you speak of? Sure, I can't drag files to the trash (they have to be deleted outright), but how is this any different than a mounted AFP or SMB share? How have I shot myself in the foot the last few years I've successfully moved data with Windows' built-in FTP?

A few of filesystem features that will never be in the ftp protocol:

• file locking (someone else its using or writing at that point)
• file or directory change notification (oops, that file is no longer there)
• file or directory identification as more than a text path (makes moving files really dangerous)
• issues with unicode names

This list creates another long list of the places where you can absolutely destroy your data if more than one person makes changes to files at the same time (that is their sessions overlap... the actual changes can be hours apart). All of these problems are addresses in the real remote volume protocols: AFS, AFP, NFS, CIFS/SMB, WebDAV (some implementations skimp on the change notification part), etc...

By forcing you to use a FTP program for write access Apple is making the point that you cannot trust that things will just go to plan on FTP, a point you seem to be missing.

[waffffffle]

In terms of compatibility though, full FTP support needs to be there. Windows users have it so companies and web sites expects clients to have it. Mac users shouldn't have to download another program just to be able to upload via FTP.

Also, SMB is missing many of the features that AFP has, yet Apple fully supports it. While FTP is not a good remote file system, that is no excuse for not supporting it if the competition has been providing this feature for years.

[Angus_D]

Originally posted by larkost:
A few of filesystem features that will never be in the ftp protocol:

• file locking (someone else its using or writing at that point)
• file or directory change notification (oops, that file is no longer there)
• file or directory identification as more than a text path (makes moving files really dangerous)
• issues with unicode names

You can't seek to the middle of a file, either. If you want to write some bytes in the middle (or even the end?), you have to reupload the entire thing. Some servers don't even support resumeable downloads.

[utidjian]

Originally posted by waffffffle:
In terms of compatibility though, full FTP support needs to be there. Windows users have it so companies and web sites expects clients to have it. Mac users shouldn't have to download another program just to be able to upload via FTP.

Also, SMB is missing many of the features that AFP has, yet Apple fully supports it. While FTP is not a good remote file system, that is no excuse for not supporting it if the competition has been providing this feature for years.

Using FTP as a remote or network type file system is, as larkost has pointed out, a bad idea for more reasons than there are reasons to use it. Just because Microsoft supports easy read/write access to remote FTP sites does NOT make it a good idea. It doesn't even make it a desirable idea. Aside from the reasons larkost pointed out, which are enough in themselves, there is also the matter of security.

FTP is not a secure encrypted transaction. Whenever you use FTP your userid and password go over the network as plain text which is trivial to sniff. All file transfers are also unencrypted... which is kinda besides the point.

There are ways to, sort of, secure FTP servers. The server admin can make it so that all FTP users have FTP only accounts... no remote login. But that only maginaly protects the server. The userid and passwords still go in the clear. Sure the user may be firewalled and locked down and whatnot at the client end.... but once those packets exit the users firewall and traverse the internet at large there is no way to ensure that no one can sniff them. It is not even a good idea to use FTP on a LAN unless you can ensure that ALL users and clients can be 100% trusted. Which brings up the next point...

If you need a network file system on the LAN just use SMB or AFP or even NFS. There is no reason to use something as clunky as FTP which was never designed to be used the way you are proposing. SMB and AFP are FAR more secure than FTP. NFS is NOT secure at all but at least the user is not required to send their userid and password in the clear. SMB should only be used on a properly firewalled LAN, never over the internet.... same for NFS... I think AFP, with recent clients and servers, encrypts everything.

The only legitimate use for FTP in todays internet is anonymous FTP... even that is debatable. Some anon-FTP sites require that the anonymous user use a legitimate email address as the password. Sending ones email address in the clear is just more spamfodder.

For easy to use secure file transfer clients there are tools like WinSCP http://winscp.sourceforge.net/eng/index.php
For Mac OS X there is Fugu http://rsug.itd.umich.edu/software/fugu/

SFTP is OK because it goes via SSH. FTP needs to die... the sooner the better.

FTP basically needs to die.

[waffffffle]

Originally posted by utidjian:
Using FTP as a remote or network type file system is, as larkost has pointed out, a bad idea for more reasons than there are reasons to use it. Just because Microsoft supports easy read/write access to remote FTP sites does NOT make it a good idea. It doesn't even make it a desirable idea. Aside from the reasons larkost pointed out, which are enough in themselves, there is also the matter of security.

FTP is not a secure encrypted transaction. Whenever you use FTP your userid and password go over the network as plain text which is trivial to sniff. All file transfers are also unencrypted... which is kinda besides the point.

There are ways to, sort of, secure FTP servers. The server admin can make it so that all FTP users have FTP only accounts... no remote login. But that only maginaly protects the server. The userid and passwords still go in the clear. Sure the user may be firewalled and locked down and whatnot at the client end.... but once those packets exit the users firewall and traverse the internet at large there is no way to ensure that no one can sniff them. It is not even a good idea to use FTP on a LAN unless you can ensure that ALL users and clients can be 100% trusted. Which brings up the next point...

If you need a network file system on the LAN just use SMB or AFP or even NFS. There is no reason to use something as clunky as FTP which was never designed to be used the way you are proposing. SMB and AFP are FAR more secure than FTP. NFS is NOT secure at all but at least the user is not required to send their userid and password in the clear. SMB should only be used on a properly firewalled LAN, never over the internet.... same for NFS... I think AFP, with recent clients and servers, encrypts everything.

The only legitimate use for FTP in todays internet is anonymous FTP... even that is debatable. Some anon-FTP sites require that the anonymous user use a legitimate email address as the password. Sending ones email address in the clear is just more spamfodder.

For easy to use secure file transfer clients there are tools like WinSCP http://winscp.sourceforge.net/eng/index.php
For Mac OS X there is Fugu http://rsug.itd.umich.edu/software/fugu/

SFTP is OK because it goes via SSH. FTP needs to die... the sooner the better.

FTP basically needs to die.

Your reasoning is flawed. If you were correct then Apple shouldn't be supporting samba because AFP is superior and anyone still using SMB/CIFS is stuck in the past. This is not the case and Apple supports SMB because it is a popular protocol.

The same goes for FTP. The vast majority of web hosting companies today provide ONLY FTP as the means for uploading files. There is no other way to do it. Right now in order to connect to any of my web hosts I need to use a separate program, and configure that program to work with my external editor (and I am limited to ONE editor). If I could do this in the Finder then I could open files in whatever app I want, easily.

I am fully aware of the limitations of FTP, but the reality is that it is still used today and Apple needs to acknowledge that.

[-Q-]

Originally posted by waffffffle:
I am fully aware of the limitations of FTP, but the reality is that it is still used today and Apple needs to acknowledge that.

No, they really don't.

They're are a multitude of FTP applications (some free, some not) out there that do exactly what you want better than the finder ever could. The fact that you have to open a separate app to do FTP really doesn't sound like too much of a hardship.

[waffffffle]

Originally posted by -Q-:
No, they really don't.

They're are a multitude of FTP applications (some free, some not) out there that do exactly what you want better than the finder ever could. The fact that you have to open a separate app to do FTP really doesn't sound like too much of a hardship.

It is certainly a hardship when you click on an FTP link in your DEFAULT browser Safari and it opens up your DEFAULT FTP client the Finder, and you find that you can't write to the server. This awful UI design, especially for new users who are used to FTP on Windows. FTP support in the Finder would bring a better UI experience to those using FTP servers. Apple makes things more difficult by configuring the Finder to be an FTP client as default and crippling it.

[Visnaut]

Originally posted by larkost:
By forcing you to use a FTP program for write access Apple is making the point that you cannot trust that things will just go to plan on FTP, a point you seem to be missing.

No, the point I'm making is that I don't care for those features. I do freelance web design, and I am the only person editing those files.

Furthermore, if I honestly could avoid FTP and use SMB or WebDAV, do you think I'd be cheesed? I'd gladly use them via the Finder. Unfortunately for me, a painfully large majority of web hosting companies only provide FTP (not even SFTP). So your point is moot, since I still have to end up using a protocol I can't completely "trust".

Originally posted by utidjian:
The only legitimate use for FTP in todays internet is anonymous FTP...

In theory you're right, I wish i could drop FTP like a rock. But in practice, FTP use is as prevalent as ever, and not easily going away.

Originally posted by -Q-:
They're are a multitude of FTP applications (some free, some not) out there that do exactly what you want better than the finder ever could.

Copying and getting files is exactly what the Finder is for, and that's all I do with FTP. Why should I rely on another program to do basically the same tasks simply because it's a different protocol?

No, it's not the end of the world that I have to use another program, but it sure would be nice not to have to. The less apps I have to use to get my work done, the better. Especially when the function of two of those programs largely overlap?

It's sort of like the hey-days of MP3. You had to have one program to encode, another to listen, etc. Then Apple came along and made the whole process easy as pie.

And seriously, what's the harm in having it in? They've already gone half way with FTP support, why not go for the rest of it?

[larkost]

Originally posted by Visnaut:
No, the point I'm making is that I don't care for those features. I do freelance web design, and I am the only person editing those files.

<snip>

Copying and getting files is exactly what the Finder is for, and that's all I do with FTP. Why should I rely on another program to do basically the same tasks simply because it's a different protocol?

No, it's not the end of the world that I have to use another program, but it sure would be nice not to have to. The less apps I have to use to get my work done, the better. Especially when the function of two of those programs largely overlap?

And seriously, what's the harm in having it in? They've already gone half way with FTP support, why not go for the rest of it?

You are getting confused by the word "features". The list I mentioned are not "features" for a remote filesystem, they are requirements for safe operation. You are not paying attention to what has been said on this thread. Read-only FTP support is a feature. Microsoft's support for FTP-write simulated as a remote filesystem is somewhere between a bug and a mis-feature. Is that black/white enough for you?

Oh... and there is a built-in FTP client in MacOS X, it is the terminal command ftp.

A second point... If you are really doing professional web work, why are you not running a development copy of the web sites you are working on on your computer? Then when you have the changes made you simply rsync (or worst case one of the simulated rsync over ftp scripts) the known-good site into place on the production server. If you are working directly on the server you need to take a step back and look at "best practices".



Oh... and on the issue of security, normal AFS (Apples, not to be confused with AFP-> Andrew File System) all of SMB, and NFS are non-encrypted. AFS has several options to encrypt the passwords and MacOS X Server offers the option to encrypt everything (including data) with OpenSSL (very good), and CIFS/SMB offers a couple of was of encrypting the passwords (up to Kerbros-like systems) but nothing on the actual data. So most of the time the only secure methods of remote filesystem access is through a VPN, through FTPS or SCP/sFTP (these two both have all the problems from this conversation, and thus are not really suitable for remote filesystem usage), or with AFS-S (from MacOS X Server). I don't believe NFS offers any encryption, and AFP only encrypts the password if memory serves.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Visnaut:
No, the point I'm making is that I don't care for those features. I do freelance web design, and I am the only person editing those files.

Irrelevant. It is this exact attitude ("it'll never happen to me, because I'm the only one who's supposed to edit these files") which has gotten us into the security mess that we're in today.

Discouraging the use of FTP by funneling people into clients which do whatever they can (within the limits of FTP itself) is exactly the kind of thing Apple and Microsoft should be doing. It is a pity that only one of them actually does it.

Apple should never have put any FTP support into the Finder, frankly. Given that they've done that already, it's best that they keep it minimal.

[waffffffle]

Originally posted by larkost:
You are getting confused by the word "features". The list I mentioned are not "features" for a remote filesystem, they are requirements for safe operation. You are not paying attention to what has been said on this thread. Read-only FTP support is a feature. Microsoft's support for FTP-write simulated as a remote filesystem is somewhere between a bug and a mis-feature. Is that black/white enough for you?

Microsoft's "mis-feature" works for 99% of the people who use it. Call it what you want but Apple is behind in this area by continuing to ignore a facility that the competition has included for years.

Oh... and there is a built-in FTP client in MacOS X, it is the terminal command ftp.

You're funny. Have you ever tried stand up?

Seriously, the whole point of this is that the FTP solution in the OS would simulate the ability to edit files "live" just like on other remote volumes. FTP clients don't do this well with the external editor features. If I use Transmit with SubEthaEdit, I can hit cmd-J to edit the file (double-click makes more sense from a UI standpoint but FTP clients DOWNLOAD when you double click) and I can edit the file. BUT, the file is actually a temp file and if my FTP client is killed before I close the file then I lose any change that I make. However if the OS controlled the FTP connection, it wouldn't allow a disconnect if there is a remote file open (this is easy to do). The OS can do a good job of giving you the illusion of a remote file system, and that's good enough for most of us.

A second point... If you are really doing professional web work, why are you not running a development copy of the web sites you are working on on your computer? Then when you have the changes made you simply rsync (or worst case one of the simulated rsync over ftp scripts) the known-good site into place on the production server. If you are working directly on the server you need to take a step back and look at "best practices".

Hello? Earth to larkost... Not all web hosts have Macs running OS X. Quite often those designing sites are hired to modify an existing site and have to deal with whatever host the customer uses. As a designer you can't really do much about this. "Best Practices" involves using a protected directory on the live server as a testing ground in many cases (such as when the client uses IIS).

Oh... and on the issue of security, normal AFS (Apples, not to be confused with AFP-> Andrew File System) all of SMB, and NFS are non-encrypted. AFS has several options to encrypt the passwords and MacOS X Server offers the option to encrypt everything (including data) with OpenSSL (very good), and CIFS/SMB offers a couple of was of encrypting the passwords (up to Kerbros-like systems) but nothing on the actual data. So most of the time the only secure methods of remote filesystem access is through a VPN, through FTPS or SCP/sFTP (these two both have all the problems from this conversation, and thus are not really suitable for remote filesystem usage), or with AFS-S (from MacOS X Server). I don't believe NFS offers any encryption, and AFP only encrypts the password if memory serves.

[larkost]

Originally posted by waffffffle:
Microsoft's "mis-feature" works for 99% of the people who use it. Call it what you want but Apple is behind in this area by continuing to ignore a facility that the competition has included for years.

Apple is not ignoring it. They are consciously deciding not to gamble with their clients' data. And love the pull-it-out-of-where-the-sun-don't-shine statistic. Care to back that one up? Or do you care to tell that to the people I have troubleshot who got stung by this bug in Windows?

Hello? Earth to larkost... Not all web hosts have Macs running OS X. Quite often those designing sites are hired to modify an existing site and have to deal with whatever host the customer uses. As a designer you can't really do much about this. "Best Practices" involves using a protected directory on the live server as a testing ground in many cases (such as when the client uses IIS).

Where did you get the idea I was talking only about MacOS X? Rsync has versions for almost every OS you can think of, and there are lots of simulators out there running in just about any language you can name. Just because you can only think of one way of doing something does not make it the best, or even worth doing.

You are not going to every convince me that it is the best practice to do either your development or testing on a production server, that is just asking for trouble. Do people do it: yes. Is it a good idea: no.


PS: "Earth to...", "Try standup..."? Do you get all of your retorts from the fourth grade?

[Spliffdaddy]

The eyecandy has certainly evolved in the 3 years since OSX was released.

I'll check back in 3 more years to see if functionality (still) remains untouched.

[Visnaut]

Originally posted by larkost:
You are getting confused by the word "features". The list I mentioned are not "features" for a remote filesystem, they are requirements for safe operation.

Let's not get into semantics now. You find them to be requirements, and they most definitely are excellent features to have. But all of them are only applicable to environments where you have multiple users editing the same pool of files.

Originally posted by larkost:
Read-only FTP support is a feature. Microsoft's support for FTP-write simulated as a remote filesystem is somewhere between a bug and a mis-feature. Is that black/white enough for you?

Now that's just opinion. Tom-eh-to, tom-ah-to. If you consider Microsoft's implementation to be a bug and a mis-feature, then I'm assuming you must consider every other graphical FTP interface to be the same.

Originally posted by larkost:
Oh... and there is a built-in FTP client in MacOS X, it is the terminal command ftp.

I use it all the time, thank you. Quite honestly I prefer that than dealing with the quirks of other FTP programs.

Originally posted by larkost:
A second point... If you are really doing professional web work, why are you not running a development copy of the web sites you are working on on your computer?

My practices weren't really the objective of this thread, but if you really must know, I do the majority of my grunt work locally first, and then tweak stuff on the server, and backup *very* often. It's just more convenient for small stuff.

And when I'm done working on a site locally, I would love to just take that directory, and just drag and drop it to a mounted FTP directory on my desktop. Simple and straight forward.

Originally posted by larkost:
Apple is not ignoring it. They are consciously deciding not to gamble with their clients' data.

If Apple was in the business of weeding out every unsafe protocol from users' grasp, why can users still use Mail with IMAP/POP/SMTP connections with no SLL? Oh that's right, not every ISP offers it.

The truth is, you can protect users to a certain extent, but when the market at large overwhelmingly supports a certain protocol, their hands are tied.

Therefore, we can't conclude Apple hasn't or won't include full FTP in the finder simply because there's an off chance two people might be editing the same file at the same time. And if they were, the responsibility is theirs, not Apple's. And there are workarounds. I've even seen Windows FTP clients that chmod a file to 000 when you're editing it. Not elegant, but doable.

Originally posted by larkost:
You are not going to every convince me that it is the best practice to do either your development or testing on a production server, that is just asking for trouble. Do people do it: yes. Is it a good idea: no.

We're not trying to change your opinion. We're making our case as to why some users would like to see full FTP functionality included in the finder. The world keeps on turning and we keep on working as we see fit if the Finder doesn't do full FTP.

Much as it would for you if it were included.

Originally posted by larkost:
You are not paying attention to what has been said on this thread.

I'm sorry, but perhaps you're not clearly understanding the points waffle and I make:

1. We would love to use other protocols other than FTP. You are absolutely correct in your assertions as to why it's a woefully inadequate protocol.
2. The majority of web hosts don't offer anything other than regular FTP. (If you can convince any one of them to throw in your protocol of choice for you without selling you a full server package, I owe you a few pitchers)
3. We only disagree with your points as to why it shouldn't be included in the Finder.
   • For simple stuff it would be great to just drag and drop files in the same app where you deal with all your other files.
   • People who need a full workgroup solution should be using better software, indeed. However, for all intents and purposes, FTP is fine for simple uses where you don't have a bunch of lemmings editing all your files without warning.
   • It hurts no one to have such functionality included except those making shareware FTP clients, and those who are going to be burned by their own ignorance anyway.

[stefdnk]

Could any of you FTP experts show me to an app. that can edit IPTC in the files on my webserver?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Visnaut

That's actually not true. Type in an FTP address into a Windows Explorer window, and you can browse it like a local disk. The fact is, a shitty old Windows 98 machine can browse my mac via FTP in a much more intuitive fashion than any client on Mac OS X or Windows. Why? Because you can work with files and folders almost just like on any other disk!

It seems ass-backwards to me that a Windows 98 machine has better built-in FTP support than even Tiger will appear to have. It's bloody 2005 already!

The sad thing is, even most Windows users don't know about it. I've had teachers in web design class shove down our throats that people HAVE to download FTP clients to upload their files, when really, just typing in the ftp address into Windows Explorer will do it. And quite well too.


I really don't understand your assertion. What important features do you speak of? Sure, I can't drag files to the trash (they have to be deleted outright), but how is this any different than a mounted AFP or SMB share? How have I shot myself in the foot the last few years I've successfully moved data with Windows' built-in FTP?

He was talking about mounting it as a directory. This doesn't work with Windows. Try putting your User folders on another harddrive. I tried it. It destroyed my windows installation. You can mount some volumes as directories now, but it's not transparent for the OS.

[CaptainHaddock]

I don't know why people keep pretending Windows has file-system support for FTP. It doesn't. Windows Explorer simply acts like a feature-poor FTP client. So what? We have plenty of good FTP clients for OS X.

Does Windows mount FTP locations as drives or folders that can be accessed through open and save dialogs? No. At least OS X lets you mount FTP locations as read-only volumes.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by waffffffle

HFS+ is also a proprietary format...

Kinda-sorta-not-really. Although Apple defines the specifications, they publish those specifications freely, and they also provide an open-source implementation (it's part of Darwin). Microsoft does neither of these things.

and since Apple is willing to offer read capability to NTFS, I don't see why they wouldn't offer write as well. It is very frustrating when trying to deal with windows hard disks.

As others have said, it is extremely dangerous to offer write support on a filesystem you don't have the specs for. Damaging the filesystem becomes very likely at that point, as does the risk of lawsuits.

As for FTP writing, Windows can do it, and has been able to do it for years. Apple really needs to get on this.

No, they don't. People would use it for file-sharing if Apple made it read/write from the Finder. Not that anything is wrong with file-sharing, but FTP is so horribly broken and insecure that this would be an absolute nightmare. Windows shouldn't offer write capability either.

It is extremely frustrating that the capability isn't there.

Security trumps false convenience. There are many free FTP clients out there which are just as easy to use as the Finder; use them if you need to use FTP for something.

It sounds to me as though you're trying to get at files on a Windows machine. You should use something more suited to this task, such as SMB filesharing (provided as part of OSX, where it's just called "Windows Sharing").

[pat++]

Originally Posted by Millennium

No, they don't. People would use it for file-sharing if Apple made it read/write from the Finder. Not that anything is wrong with file-sharing, but FTP is so horribly broken and insecure that this would be an absolute nightmare. Windows shouldn't offer write capability either.

Security trumps false convenience. There are many free FTP clients out there which are just as easy to use as the Finder; use them if you need to use FTP for something.

It sounds to me as though you're trying to get at files on a Windows machine. You should use something more suited to this task, such as SMB filesharing (provided as part of OSX, where it's just called "Windows Sharing").

If you don't want to use ftp, no one will force you. The fact is a lot of people NEED it. It's a basic feature, and yes, Apple should do it. Downloading an FTP client is not acceptable. It's a BASIC feature supported by windows (and even Linux desktop environments) for YEARS. I don't why why there would be any valid technical limitation to implement it in the Finder. Apple needs to do it. Period. FTP would still be the most natural protocol to use to transfer a file on a Linux box. I know there are altenatives like ssh, but it's not always installed/available. Btw, Finder should support ssh as well.

[SMacTech]

Originally Posted by waffffffle

As for NTFS, it is extremely frustrating that the only format hard disk that can be shared between Macs and PCs is FAT, because that 2 GB file limit is an absolute pain.

How did I ever copy my DVD images to my PC and my encrypted .dmg files? They are much larger than 2GB files.

[SMacTech]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaddock

I don't know why people keep pretending Windows has file-system support for FTP. It doesn't. Windows Explorer simply acts like a feature-poor FTP client. So what? We have plenty of good FTP clients for OS X.

Does Windows mount FTP locations as drives or folders that can be accessed through open and save dialogs? No. At least OS X lets you mount FTP locations as read-only volumes.

At last, some saneness amidst the thread.

Let them mount those FTP shares, all at the same time too, and you go to town with your XP boxen all thinking they have exclusive access to a file. NOT !!!

[pat++]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaddock

I don't know why people keep pretending Windows has file-system support for FTP. It doesn't. Windows Explorer simply acts like a feature-poor FTP client. So what? We have plenty of good FTP clients for OS X.

Does Windows mount FTP locations as drives or folders that can be accessed through open and save dialogs? No. At least OS X lets you mount FTP locations as read-only volumes.

The problem is not that windows doesn't let you open a file in the open/save dialogs (btw how many times did you actually need to do it on OS X? zero I would bet). How many times did you need to COPY a file on an ftp server? plenty. That's the point.

[phrenzy]

The apple apologists in this thread have really outdone themselves.

What's next - "No no no! We can't support word .doc files!! - The format is inferior to... whatever"

I swear, people will come up with 1001 reasons to not include a dead-basic / useful function. Remember the anti-tabs arguments? Same ****. We need FTP. It is a standard. The arguments 'against' including it are absurd. If you don't like FTP as a protocol then don't use it.

Apple NEEDS to implement this in the finder, period.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by pat++

FTP would still be the most natural protocol to use to transfer a file on a Linux box. I know there are altenatives like ssh, but it's not always installed/available.

What modern distro doesn't provide SSH as part of the default install? I'm not aware of any (though most, and hopefully all, don't have sshd active by default). When I want to transfer files across a network from Linux to Linux or from OS X to Linux I use SCP. Hell, I use SCP most of the time when transferring files from OS X to OS X. I suspect most other Linux users are the same way and would be loathe to open up an unsecured port just to use ftp.

[SMacTech]

Originally Posted by phrenzy

The apple apologists in this thread have really outdone themselves.

What's next - "No no no! We can't support word .doc files!! - The format is inferior to... whatever"

I swear, people will come up with 1001 reasons to not include a dead-basic / useful function. Remember the anti-tabs arguments? Same ****. We need FTP. It is a standard. The arguments 'against' including it are absurd. If you don't like FTP as a protocol then don't use it.

Apple NEEDS to implement this in the finder, period.

Have you ever had to deal with several users access an FTP site simultaneously, all trying to manage the files? It can't be done, correctly. The protocol doesn't support it. Do you understand that basic principle?

The Finder doesn't need any more bastardization. Go spend a few bucks and buy Transmit or some other great ftp program, I did.

Apple apologists have nothing to do with this and I don't need 1001 reasons either. Just one. The ftp protocol doesn't fit an OS file manager.

Citing that other OSes support this feature is meaningless. Some of those same OSes support many other things we DON'T have on our Macs. Security problems, viruses, trojans, et al. I suppose you want those features too?

To say it is such a basic feature and that it MUST be implemented in the Finder is ludicrous. What other basic feature need to come in the Finder, virus protection ?

[jasong]

Hey, you can whine all you want about how you have to have it, but 2 things come to mind. 1. you don't have it, and there is no evidence it is ever coming, and 2. You seem to be using Macs now without it, which makes it sound like slightly less than the critical issue it is being made out to be.

[pat++]

Originally Posted by SMacTech

Have you ever had to deal with several users access an FTP site simultaneously, all trying to manage the files? It can't be done, correctly. The protocol doesn't support it. Do you understand that basic principle?

The Finder doesn't need any more bastardization. Go spend a few bucks and buy Transmit or some other great ftp program, I did.

What is the the difference between having 2 users having access to an FTP with Transmit and 2 users accessing it through the Finder??????????????? Do YOU understand the basic principle??????

[Angus_D]

Originally Posted by pat++

What is the the difference between having 2 users having access to an FTP with Transmit and 2 users accessing it through the Finder??????????????? Do YOU understand the basic principle??????

Transmit does not expose a virtual file system.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by pat++

If you don't want to use ftp, no one will force you. The fact is a lot of people NEED it.

They need FTP access. They do not need the Finder to perform FTP access.

It's a basic feature, and yes, Apple should do it.

It is not a basic feature -networking protocols, even ones as simple and broken as FTP, are anything but basic. Apple should not do it, because of the security compromise.

Downloading an FTP client is not acceptable. It's a BASIC feature supported by windows (and even Linux desktop environments) for YEARS.

It should never have been supported in Windows. The Linux desktop environments do not roll it into their file managers, but leave them to external (thogh sometimes bundled) programs.

I don't why why there would be any valid technical limitation to implement it in the Finder.

There are no technical limitations. The problem is FTP's inherent insecurity.

Apple needs to do it. Period.

Apple must not do it. Period.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by phrenzy

The apple apologists in this thread have really outdone themselves.

I am not an Apple apologist. I am someone who deals with computer security issues on a daily basis, and knows enough to know that security must never trump a false sense of convenience. Security can -and should- be made as convenient as possible, but it must never be outright sacrificed.

What's next - "No no no! We can't support word .doc files!! - The format is inferior to... whatever"

The format is inferior, but that is a matter of compatibility, not security. There is a security issue with macros, but this can be dealy with by not supporting macros; the Word format allows for that.

I swear, people will come up with 1001 reasons to not include a dead-basic / useful function.

It is not basic. It is useful, but can and should be provided by other programs, and not by a file manager.

Remember the anti-tabs arguments?

The anti-tabs arguments were based on ignorance of how Web pages work. The pro-FTP arguments depend on a profound ignorance of how security works.

Same ****. We need FTP. It is a standard. The arguments 'against' including it are absurd. If you don't like FTP as a protocol then don't use it.

It is not a matter of like and dislike. It is a matter of the fact that the Finder is a file manager, and FTP is not usable for file management.

FTP access is built into the OS, by the way. There is a very nice Terminal-based client included in the OS: the command is simply ftp. If you think you need it, and you know enough to actually be correct in your thinking that you need it, then you know enough to be able to use this.

[Millennium]

FTP is the ActiveX of Internet protocols: it's not actually all that good at anything, it's so fundamentally flawed as to be a security nightmare. There are two kinds of people who use it for anything other than an occasional download from the Internet: those who don't know enough to know any better, and those who know enough to prey on those who don't know enough to know any better.

The fact is, people who use it for general filesharing are Apple's problem, because these are the people who will get targeted for security exploits. Apple can nip this in the bug by doing The Right Thing: not including it as an easy-to-use option in the GUI, and providing just enough of a hurdle by relegating it to the Terminal that those most at risk will be scared away from using it.

[Kevin]

And this folks, is why OS X is more secure than Windows.

[pat++]

Originally Posted by Angus_D

Transmit does not expose a virtual file system.

So what? what is the link with 2 simultaneous users accessing the same ftp?

[pat++]

Originally Posted by Millennium

FTP is the ActiveX of Internet protocols: it's not actually all that good at anything, it's so fundamentally flawed as to be a security nightmare. There are two kinds of people who use it for anything other than an occasional download from the Internet: those who don't know enough to know any better, and those who know enough to prey on those who don't know enough to know any better.

The fact is, people who use it for general filesharing are Apple's problem, because these are the people who will get targeted for security exploits. Apple can nip this in the bug by doing The Right Thing: not including it as an easy-to-use option in the GUI, and providing just enough of a hurdle by relegating it to the Terminal that those most at risk will be scared away from using it.

Please stop with this ********. It's a security risk for the SERVER. OS X provides an FTP server by default and you can enable it in the GUI with ONE click. CAN YOU TELL ME WHERE IS THE SECURITY ISSUE WITH IMPLEMENTING A PROPER CLIENT IN THE FINDER?????????

[phrenzy]

Originally Posted by pat++

Please stop with this ********. It's a security risk for the SERVER. OS X provides an FTP server by default and you can enable it in the GUI with ONE click. CAN YOU TELL ME WHERE IS THE SECURITY ISSUE WITH IMPLEMENTING A PROPER CLIENT IN THE FINDER?????????

No. They won't. I guess "security" trumps everything. Maybe macs should REQUIRE retina scans before they boot up. Oh, I love how having a proper FTP client from the OS is something is linked to getting a virus.

Couldn't much of this argument have been made against supporting anything other than AppleShare? Why do we support smb or ntfs? It leaves those stupid .crap files behind on windows servers too. That's not very intuitive. Oh yeah, wait. It's for the CONVENIENCE of not having to get some stupid 3rd party program to let you access them.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by pat++

Please stop with this ********. It's a security risk for the SERVER. OS X provides an FTP server by default and you can enable it in the GUI with ONE click. CAN YOU TELL ME WHERE IS THE SECURITY ISSUE WITH IMPLEMENTING A PROPER CLIENT IN THE FINDER?????????

You really want to know? Watch:

1) User sets up badly-done FTP server.
2) Hacker sets up sniffer somewhere upstream of the FTP server, listening for passwords.
3) Other users log into FTP servers, giving up their IP addresses and server passwords in the process.
4) Hacker goes after other users' Macs, trying the passwords they gave for the FTP server. In over 90% of cases this works, because the vast majority of people use the same password for everything.
5) Hacker hacks Macs and repeats the process.

Happy? This is the flaw in the FTP protocol which makes it unusable for file sharing. If Apple implements full FTP access in the Finder, people will use it for filesharing, and they will be hacked. This is Apple's problem, and it's one they can nip in the bud by implementing an infintesimal barrier.

Does that satisfy your "But mommy, I don't wanna download a whole other program!" whining? There is no need for FTP access in the Finder, and very good reasons not to add it in. Apple does not need to provide, and indeed should not provide, a monolithic, bloated App That Does Everything.

[pat++]

Originally Posted by Millennium

You really want to know? Watch:

1) User sets up badly-done FTP server.

Again, is not implementing a client in the Finder related to SERVER setup? If server is enabled, I can already use Terminal....

2) Hacker sets up sniffer somewhere upstream of the FTP server, listening for passwords.

Who is the hell is going sniff packets behind my firewall between my 2 networked computers?
Do you think POP3 is more secure? No it isn't. And nevertheless Apple is supporting POP3 in Mail... What ??? This is a huge security risk. My mum didn't tell me!

3) Other users log into FTP servers, giving up their IP addresses and server passwords in the process.

It's true that providing a read-only client is much more secure... passwords are much harder to get when sniffing packets....

4) Hacker goes after other users' Macs, trying the passwords they gave for the FTP server. In over 90% of cases this works, because the vast majority of people use the same password for everything.

5) Hacker hacks Macs and repeats the process.

Happy? This is the flaw in the FTP protocol which makes it unusable for file sharing. If Apple implements full FTP access in the Finder, people will use it for filesharing, and they will be hacked. This is Apple's problem, and it's one they can nip in the bud by implementing an infintesimal barrier.

Does that satisfy your "But mommy, I don't wanna download a whole other program!" whining? There is no need for FTP access in the Finder, and very good reasons not to add it in. Apple does not need to provide, and indeed should not provide, a monolithic, bloated App That Does Everything.

I'm stopping the discussion here... If security was really the matter, they would not implement autologin, POP3, and other stuff... Now Go and ask you mum why she lied to you....

If Apple was really following your idea, they wouldn't implement ANYTHING, and NOONE would use a Mac, because they wouldn't interoperate with other systems. I agree, that would be a very secure, very useless system.

[SMacTech]

Originally Posted by pat++

What is the the difference between having 2 users having access to an FTP with Transmit and 2 users accessing it through the Finder??????????????? Do YOU understand the basic principle??????

There is a big difference, the Finder will not let you write to the FTP server. I understand the basic principle there. My 10 years as a system administrator, part of which was for an FTP server taught me a lot about its basic principles.

As to who is going to sniff packets behind your firewall? I found two employees doing JUST that. They were even trying to telnet into the company network switches and made changes to them hoping to cover their tracks.

A student in IP had gleaned some passwords to help these two overthrow their department head. They even managed to get her password and send out emails incriminating her.

[Kevin]

Again, this is why OS X is more secure than Windows.

[pat++]

Originally Posted by KevinK

Again, this is why OS X is more secure than Windows.

This is the most stupid comment in this thread, and you managed to post it twice. Congratulations. Why providing a read-only ftp client makes OS X more secure than windows?

[pat++]

Originally Posted by SMacTech

There is a big difference, the Finder will not let you write to the FTP server.

Thank you so much. Only your very smart mind was able to notice this.... The question was : what is the difference between a read/write Finder and a read/write Transmit client? Answer : none.

I understand the basic principle there. My 10 years as a system administrator, part of which was for an FTP server taught me a lot about its basic principles.

Really? It doesn't seem to be the case when reading your comments.

As to who is going to sniff packets behind your firewall? I found two employees doing JUST that. They were even trying to telnet into the company network switches and made changes to them hoping to cover their tracks.

Tell your two employees to come. If they are interested in breaking into my house just to sniff packets between my 2 computers I would be surprised... Btw, if you care that much about security (which can be legitimate on a company network), and if you were that smart, you would have disabled FTP from your servers.

A student in IP had gleaned some passwords to help these two overthrow their department head. They even managed to get her password and send out emails incriminating her.

Your student will still be able to get passwords when you read your email with POP or access FTP with the Finder in read-only.

[wtmcgee]

Originally Posted by Visnaut

No, the point I'm making is that I don't care for those features. I do freelance web design, and I am the only person editing those files.

You're a web designer, who no doubt spends hours upon hours uploading and editing files remotely ... and you want to use the finder to do this? Seriously, drop $30 for Transmit or buy Fetch. I've never met a web developer of any kind who doesn't use a robust ftp file manager to make their life easier.