This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: sftp removing writable bit
* Andrew DeFaria (Thu, 13 Sep 2007 08:53:25 -0700)
> Thorsten Kampe wrote:
> > * Andrew DeFaria (Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:49:49 -0700)
> >> Thorsten Kampe wrote:
> >>> * Andrew DeFaria (Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:48:58 -0700)
> >>>> What is sftp good for? I mean what does it
> >>>> have
> >>>> over say... scp?
> >>> You can use your favourite FTP client, right?!
> >> As opposed to just typing scp? I still don't get it...
> > Yes. Some clients (by coincidence my favourite ones) like yafc, lftp
> > and SpeedCommander do sftp. Lftp even does fish (which I think is
> > "pure" scp/ssh).
> I guess I'm saying is that if yafc, lftp and SpeedCommander can do sftp
> then scp will also work (no?).
Yes. scp works always because it doesn't have to be enabled.
> I use ncftp, when ftp is the only way, which doesn't do sftp (I
> What are the chances that those other sftp type clients are
> available on say the Solaris or Linux clients/servers of a client
> I'm working for?
Probably not on a server.
> Much less than the possibility of scp being present. And I'm not
> necessarily against the idea of "well go out and get a working copy
> of these programs" but often clients do not give consultants that
If your tools are limited or you do transfer just one file then scp is
fine. But if you want some comfort you should go for the other ones.
By the way: this has nothing to do with scp versus sftp. And I'm not
really sure what you mean by scp - do you mean the protocol or the
command line tool?
Anyway: if I haven't convinced you yet that sftp can have its uses and
advantages then I probably never will.
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html