This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: sftp removing writable bit
On 9/14/07, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> Thorsten Kampe wrote:
> > * Andrew DeFaria (Thu, 13 Sep 2007 08:53:25 -0700)
> >> 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
> >> privilege.
> > If your tools are limited or you do transfer just one file then scp is
> > fine.
> One file? scp can transfer whole trees...
> > But if you want some comfort you should go for the other ones.
> My point is the chances are better that scp will "just work" while sftp
> probably won't be configured...
> > 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?
> Command line tool. IOW why go through the bother to set up an sftp
> server (I assume that needs to be set up) and picking and getting an
> sftp client when in all likelihood scp is already there and ready to
> use. IOW what's the advantage of an sftp client over just plain scp?
> > Anyway: if I haven't convinced you yet that sftp can have its uses and
> > advantages then I probably never will.
> That's funny I was thinking the same thing!
> Doesn't mean we can't discuss it though...
> Andrew DeFaria <http://defaria.com>
> Everybody repeat after me ...We are all individuals.
sftp provides you with an FTP command set where scp does not
that's about the only thing I can think of that makes a difference;
seems like a compelling reason if you are going to be doing complex
transfers, but if you are more familiar and comfortable with scp, then
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html