|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Date: Jun 2, 2008 19:31
Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> I'm curious what others use under Leopard for FTP.
> Personally I'm a long time devotee of Fetch (simple, backwards
> compatible with older versions of OSX, it works, no frills, clean UI),
With all the other wonderful things Apple has done,
I can't figure out why they can't make a decent FTP GUI.
Apple had it working with Network Browser in OS 9--if you
can call crashing on large jobs "working."
Then there was iDisk, which worked quite well--if you didn't
mind taking all day to backup a couple of term papers.
(Yes, I know it wasn't really FTP)
Now there's the implementation in Panther, which is not bad--
until you realize it's incoming only and finicky about
protocols. Tiger and Leopard have it yet?
The other guys have had two-way drag-n-drop recursive
FTP for a decade. I don't get it.
I just use command line. ftp or sftp for non-recursive.
For recursive, sitecopy or wget.
|
| Show full article (1.24Kb) |
|
| | 3 Comments |
|
|
Author: HuanHuan Date: Jun 3, 2008 18:39
On 2008-06-03, Wes Groleau freeshell.org> wrote in
:
> Then there was iDisk, which worked quite well--if you didn't
> mind taking all day to backup a couple of term papers.
> (Yes, I know it wasn't really FTP)
>
> Now there's the implementation in Panther, which is not bad--
> until you realize it's incoming only and finicky about
> protocols. Tiger and Leopard have it yet?
If you were still talking about iDisk in the second paragraph, then I
will disagree. After switching from Panther directly to Leopard last
fall, I have not noticed any difference at all when I use iDisk. It
works just fine, although quite slow.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Date: Jun 3, 2008 19:28
Huan wrote:
> On 2008-06-03, Wes Groleau freeshell.org> wrote in >> Then there was iDisk, which worked quite well--if you didn't
>> mind taking all day to backup a couple of term papers.
>> (Yes, I know it wasn't really FTP)
>>
>> Now there's the implementation in Panther, which is not bad--
>> until you realize it's incoming only and finicky about
>> protocols. Tiger and Leopard have it yet?
>
> If you were still talking about iDisk in the second paragraph, then I
> will disagree. After switching from Panther directly to Leopard last
> fall, I have not noticed any difference at all when I use iDisk. It
> works just fine, although quite slow.
If you are talking about the second paragraph I wrote, that's exactly
what I said: quite slow.
|
| Show full article (1.17Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Jamie Kahn GenetJamie Kahn Genet Date: Jun 3, 2008 21:44
Huan netscape.net> wrote:
> On 2008-06-03, Wes Groleau freeshell.org> wrote in
> :
> >> Then there was iDisk, which worked quite well--if you didn't
>> mind taking all day to backup a couple of term papers.
>> (Yes, I know it wasn't really FTP)
>>
>> Now there's the implementation in Panther, which is not bad--
>> until you realize it's incoming only and finicky about
>> protocols. Tiger and Leopard have it yet?
>
> If you were still talking about iDisk in the second paragraph, then I
> will disagree. After switching from Panther directly to Leopard last
> fall, I have not noticed any difference at all when I use iDisk. It
> works just fine, although quite slow.
> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
|
| Show full article (0.93Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
